The Story of Trickster

The story of trickster is really amazing and hard to believe, but if you were in our shoes and didn't know what one in real life looked like you would see where we are coming from.

Trickster came to us as a mutt dog, and what little we knew until our wonderful Ceanne told us different that he was a hybrid. Trickster is a very good baby and was good with people once he got to know you. He acted like a dog and was trained like a dog should be trained.

Trickster went to live with Ceanne. That is going to be home his home for the rest of his life. We truly miss him, but at the same time we know he is safe. When Ceanne got him and he got really sick, developed some kinda worm, she took care of it with her lovely vet.

Ceanne takes really good care of trickster although she is always finding a sock or something chewed up that Trickster thought he needed worse than her.

Trickster, we love you and miss you very much, and we know Ceanne will do her best to make you happy and she has for her other coyotes.

God Bless You Ceanne you are great.

--- Penny Hoffman

Hi CeAnn,

I went to your website. Thank you for what you are doing for coyotes! I have lived in the heart of ranch country for the last 15 years and am appalled by the treatment coyotes get. I can tell you a story about ADC. We woke up one morning 13 years ago to the sounds of a helicopter and gunfire. It went on with the helicopter flying up and down all the draws for over 4 hours shooting coyotes. We learned from our neighbor that they had been losing chickens to a coyote. These chickens have no coop to go into at night, nor are they even used for eggs or meat. I suppose they are just yard ornaments. The total coyotes killed that day was 24. At $700 an hour to lease the helicopter, it cost over $3000 counting travel time to save less that $100 worth of chickens. AND the offending coyote was not among the victims. The chickens continued to be lost.

If I'd wanted to wake up to sounds like I was in a war zone, I could have moved to someplace like Iraq. That incident pushed me over the edge into vegetarianism where I remain.

Last winter, I and my dogs nearly stepped in a leghold trap placed on National Forest land here in New Mexico. I inadvertently but fortuitously kicked it harmlessly shut with the way my feet were placed in the leaf strewn path. I could neither open nor remove the chain stake as the ground was frozen that day. And I was several hours away from help. As pelt prices are up and my friends are discovering, traps are becoming more prevalent. Our state Sierra Club chapter is engaged in trying to prohibit these devices from public land here - what a learning experience. I never dreamed there would be this kind of opposition. So its going to take longer than any of us expected, but we are in it for the long haul.

One of our difficulties is that coyotes are not protected in NM at all. About the only rule is you can't shoot them at night. The state land commissioner prohibits killing them on state land, but that rule is not enforced. It is beginning to become apparent to me that persecuting coyotes is a good way to get more coyotes. The people at API are publishing a monograph about it that is supposed to be out later this month. I've also been in contact with some ranchers in Arizona who no longer kill predators. They stopped 8 years ago. After a couple of years learning how to do things differently, they have killed zero predators for the last 5 years and have had zero livestock losses. So it can be done.

I love to hear coyotes raise their songs in the mornings and evenings and whenever I see one, I say a little blessing- live long and prosper!

The same goes for you!
Mary Katherine

...What else does??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye8mB6VsUHw

 tanidareal has just lost a loved one. I know we're all 'yotes and foxes here but a moment of silence is needed for the passing of Ashati, a beautiful feline that was loved unconditionally even past the moment of her passing. Rest in peace, Little Sunshine.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1081508/

I need some doodler love. I haven't gotten any hits on this bait yet

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1080038/

Hotei was about 7 weeks old when he arrived at the ICRC on May 22, 2004. He came from Greenfield, Indiana, and was transported to our facility by Cindy Schulze, our Corp, Secretary and all round supporter.

Hotei's mother and four siblings were killed by a car near highway 74. Hotei was the only survivor. When he was found by a man on a motorcycle, he was trying to dig a den underneath his mother, so that he could hide. The man took Hotei home to his mother who took very good care of him until we could pick him up one week later.

Hotei bonded very quickly to Tammy Solenberg and after he arrived here, he bonded to me within two days.

Hotei will be introduced to either Cherokee or Morrell at the appropriate time. He will have a home here for the rest of his life. He is already interacting with two of my dogs and seems to enjoy it here.

Since Indiana Coyote Rescue Center does not buy, sell or breed coyotes, Hotei will need to get his vasectomy in just a few weeks. This surgery will cost about $200.00 A new puppy is always expensive. Any help would be very appreciated and all donations are tax deductable.

I need anyone who can spare ANY amount of money to this awesome dude here. Did I mention that ANY amount helps? even if it's a freakin' quarter. If you can't spare anything, this needs to be spread through the journals so he can be helped

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1075247/

Family Canidae
Coyote Canis latrans
Prairie Wolf, Brush Wolf
Butler, 1895

DESCRIPTION

Coyotes are doglike ani­mals with pointed noses and ears and tan to whitish legs and feet. The outsides of the ears are reddish or rusty colored. The body may be mostly gray, yellowish gray, or reddish gray, mixed with varying amounts of black above; the throat and undersides are whitish or grayish. The tail is quite bushy and relatively short; above, it usually is simi­lar in color to the back, but may be more grayish with a blackish spot on the dorsal sur­face near the base and it may have a black tip. The underside of the tail is paler than the dorsal surface. The pelage is coarse and long. An albino specimen has been reported from Union County.

The coyote, red fox, gray fox, and raccoon all have six upper molariform teeth on each side (see Fig. 5). The raccoon skull is much smaller (short rostrum and rounded brain-case) than coyote or fox skulls. The coyote skull is considerably larger than that of either fox. Fox skulls have dorsal crests divided anteriorly; the coyote skull has a single dorsal crest. Coyote skulls are most likely to be con­fused with skulls of the domestic dog, or with coyote-dog (coydog) hybrids. The distance between the first two molariform teeth divided into the length of the molariform tooth row is usually about 3.7 in the coyote, less than 3.0 in dogs, and from 3.1 to 3.6 in hybrids.

Weights and measurements are shown in Table 165. The dental formula is:

Table 165
Weights and measurements of Canis latrans from Indiana
Males Females
Total length (mm)
n 24 15
X 1190.0 1185.6
range 1025-1320 1030-1450
SD 65.4 104.7
SE 13.3 27.0
Tail length (mm)
n 24 15
X 342.7 340.2
range 290-395 295-387
SD 29.3 28.2
SE 6.0 7.2
Hind foot (mm)
n 22 15
X 199.9 187.5
range 180-210 169-203
SD 8.5 12.6
SE 1.8 3.2
Weight* (pounds)
n 29 22
X 30.9 25.6
range 17.75-38.5 19-32
SD 4.3 3.2
SE 0.8 0.7
*A series of 42 male coyotes from Montgomery County taken during 1976 averaged 29.5 lbs (range 16-46; SD=6.9, SE = 1.1), whereas 17 females aver­aged 27.2 lbs (range 18-33; SD=4.0, SE = 1.0).

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION

The coyote originally occurred in both northwestern and parts of western Indiana in fairly good num­bers. Packs of twenty were reported in Lake County, and David Thomas recounted that thirteen were killed on Christmas Day, 1816, at Fort Harrison (Vigo County). In 1883, LaPorte County paid bounties on 51 "coyotes" (Haller, 1950). Some of these ani­mals, however, could have been gray wolves (Canis lupus). In writing about Lake County, Dinwiddie (1884) stated, "In the early set­tlement of the county Prairie Wolves were very numerous and bold. They were mostly the common brownish wolf, but there were a few nearly black." It is obvious that the coyote was never extirpated from Indiana; they persisted despite persecution by settlers and began to exhibit an increase by 1909 (Hahn, 1909). With the elimination of most of Indiana's forests, the coyote was able to move away from the prairie regions and invade other sections of the state. This trend is evi­dent from the fact that Lyon (1936) had re­ports of coyotes from 32 counties.

Since 1936, the coyote has continued to increase, judging from reports, animals killed, and bounty rec­ords. From 1849 to 1948, there were 1,325 "coyotes" bountied in 17 counties (Haller, 1950). In 1946, bounties were paid on 102 coyotes in 9 Indiana counties.

Populations of coyotes sometimes are pres­ent in a locality for several years; one such site near Romney (Tippecanoe County) has been the source of animals shot from at least 1965 to 1978. An earlier concentration oc­curred near West Point (Tippecanoe County). In the Parr-Fair Oaks-Demotte area of northwestern Jasper County, 10 to 12 coyotes were reportedly killed annually for several years before 1969 (fide Larry E. Lehmann). This region for years seemed to be one of the optimum areas for the coyote in Indiana. From November 1966 to January 1968, 7 were bountied from Jasper County (letter from Lehmann to Mumford).


Map 50. The Coyote, Canis latrans, in Indiana
Coyotes now occur throughout Indiana, having successfully invaded the hilly, wooded south-central portion in recent times. They can now be expected to appear in any county (Map 50).

Many early references to coyotes in In­diana (they were usually listed as "wolves") cannot be properly evaluated because they may refer to the coyote, gray wolf, or red wolf—all once found in the state.

However, since the settlement of Indiana by the white man, most such accounts probably refer to coyotes. In more recent years, there has been an increasing number of records of coyote-dog hybrids. Some of these hybrids are quite large (50 pounds) and many residents mis­takenly believe that these animals are gray wolves. Since all degrees of dog or coyote characteristics may be visible in any particu­lar hybrid animal, some interesting and puzzling specimens are sometimes produced.

Population data are few, and no intensive study has been conducted on the coyote in Indiana. Leonard "Dutch" Schwartz trapped 16 coyotes on the Willow Slough Fish and Wildlife Area (Newton County) in one win­ter. During the winter of 1976-77, about 100 coyotes were trapped or shot in a relatively small area of northern Montgomery County and southern Tippecanoe County. The following winter, about 50 coyotes were known to have been taken in the same general area.
HABITAT

Although numerous accounts of coyotes killed in Indiana have been published in newspapers and magazines, few data are available on the habitats in which the animals were encountered. Most coyote hunters evidently located the animals in the brushy portions of cultivated or overgrown areas, and mentioned finding them in the brush or note that their tracks led into brushy sites. Near Lafayette, a family of coyotes lived in a rather extensive, brushy series of old gravel pits in the late summer of 1972. They probably had a den there. Coyotes are also reported from the forested regions of southern Indiana, but brushy openings, creek bottoms, and other favorable sites occur in that section of the state. Vague references in early historic accounts mention coyotes "on the prairie," and no doubt in presettlement times most Indiana coyotes were found on the prairies or prairie fringes. Even today, reports of coyotes are received more com­monly from the northwestern section of the state, which was once prairie, than from other sections.

Waste areas, some with dense, low vegeta­tion, appear to supply good conditions for coyotes in Indiana. Coyotes have recently in­vaded a waste area in Clark County, Illinois, just west of Terre Haute, Indiana. Here coyotes have been seen or heard several times. There are reports of coyotes in aban­doned strip-mined lands in southwestern Indiana.

Standing corn is evidently an important vegetation type for coyotes in parts of the state. An animal trapped and fitted with a radio transmitter by S. D. Ford spent much of its time during the day in the fall in a cornfield until the corn was picked. Two coyotes were trapped in a popcorn field in Gibson County.
HABITS

Little information has been ob­tained on the habits of Indiana coyotes. They are mostly nocturnal, spending the day bedded down in the cover of a brushy area, fencerow, stubble field, weed field, or cornfield. Judging from the number of obser­vations made during the daytime, coyotes move about, and possibly hunt, to some ex­tent also during daylight hours. A female coyote killed in February was flushed by hunters from a daytime retreat (a weed patch) it shared with a red fox. In early morning and late evening, coyotes are sometimes seen in open areas, such as airports. One of a group of five was struck by an airplane on the Purdue University Airport in 1977. Airport per­sonnel complained that the animals had been repeatedly observed on the runways. Perhaps the coyotes were attracted there by the open space and by the numerous ground squirrels and mice available for food.

Until fairly recent years, there were few reports of coyotes heard howling in Indiana. Earlier, when the state coyote population was low, the animals appear to have been much more secretive and quiet. C. M. Kirkpatrick and S. R. Esten both reported howling having been heard on the Jasper-Pulaski Fish and Wildlife Area in the early 1930s. From time to time up to the 1960s howling was reported. Then in the 1960s and into the 1970s, more and more coyotes were heard. No doubt some of the increase in reports resulted from the greatly increased coyote population that oc­curred in the 1960s. And some of the in­creased frequency of howling may have been a function of social activity. The coyotes liv­ing near the Purdue University campus fre­quently howled in response to the sound of a train whistle nearby. Other loud sounds will also entice coyotes to howl.

There are several published accounts in popular magazines and newspapers of coyote chases by dogs. One coyote was reportedly chased "2 days" before it was killed (Out­door Indiana, January 1936). Another was pursued by dogs for 6 miles (Plymouth Pilot, 2 March 1959). Fox hounds chased another coyote 25 miles over a four-hour period be­fore the coyote was killed (Indianapolis Star, October 1966). An account of a fight between a coyote and a female German shepherd was described in Outdoor Indiana (July 1934). The coyote was captured alive and kept cap­tive for some time at the Jasper-Pulaski Fish and Wildlife Area. Numerous hunters and trappers in Indiana feel that the coyote dis­places foxes in an area. There is considerable concern that in counties where coyotes are still invading, the fox population will de­crease drastically. We know of no quantitative data to support this belief.

Although most of the observations of coyotes in Indiana in recent years have been of single animals or small groups, there have been some reports of larger assemblages. Six animals seen together in July (Gibson County) by Terry Tichenor probably repre­sented a family. There are earlier reports of "packs" containing as many as twenty ani­mals.

One difficulty in assessing the observations of coyotes in Indiana has been the determi­nation of whether the observer saw a coyote, a dog, or a dog-coyote hybrid. Coyotes usu­ally carry the tail down when running. Eric Edberg noticed that when a coyote is sneak­ing it tucks the tail, lowers its ears, and keeps its nose near the ground. Some of the animals reported to us (and some of the specimens and photographs we have examined) were simply too large and abnormally colored to be coyotes.

C. W. Bussel reported that packs of coyotes were found in February (thought to be the mating season) in northwestern Indiana. David Thomas implied that several coyotes might be found together, and historical ac­counts mention "packs." No recent observa­tions of packs of animals have come to our attention, although in the late 1800s as many as "20 in a drove" were reported (Anderson, 1922). A pack of prairie wolves was recorded in LaPorte County in the winter of 1832.

Dens are usually burrows in the ground. Coyotes may dig their own or modify a bur­row system excavated by another mammal, such as a woodchuck. The den may be in a concealed site, such as under a stump, and have two or three entrances. Mounds of exca­vated soil are frequently found at the burrow entrances. Once a den is established, it may be used for several years. W. E. Madden told us of a coyote den occupied for four consecu­tive years in a sandy ("blowout") area that had been planted with pine trees years ago (Newton County). We have reports of other dens being used for at least two years each. At least one of these was located in a thicket.

Some coyotes reportedly have constructed their dens in old, overgrown gravel pits and strip-mined areas. Dens are also located in wooded areas and in sites where there are dense plantings of multiflora rose.

A trapper in Gibson County captured single coyotes in the same trap on 17 and 20 December. We have reports of two animals seen traveling together on 14 December, 13 January, and 20 January. These were possibly mated pairs. Two of three coyotes running to­gether in late March were shot; one was a male, the other a female. A trapper reported that when he found a coyote in one of his traps there were two or three other coyotes lingering nearby.
FOOD (noms)

Most general accounts of coyotes in Indiana in earlier times refer to the de­struction of poultry, pigs, lambs, and game animals by the "wolves," and one person mentioned that coyotes were especially adept at killing turkeys (Hahn, 1909). Coyotes are opportunistic feeders and can subsist on a wide variety of animals (mostly mammals). A considerable amount of mammalian food is taken as carrion. Some plant materials are also eaten. There has been no systematic work conducted on the food habits of the coyote in Indiana. Such a study is currently under way by S. D. Ford.

The coyote captures small prey by pounc­ing upon it with its feet, but usually kills larger prey by rushing it from the front and slashing the throat, killing with the canine teeth. Coyotes often hunt in groups of three or four, and they may partially cover a larger kill after feeding on it, and feed on it again later.

Conservation Officer Donald Smith told us that he had examined the stomach contents of a few Indiana coyotes and found that they contained mostly voles and other small ro­dents. A coyote killed near West Point had nothing but 14 prairie voles and 2 mice (Peromyscus sp.) in its stomach. James Eloff, while tracking a coyote, found remains of a mourning dove killed by the coyote. We ex­amined the stomachs of 11 other Indiana coyotes. In 4 of them, nothing but prairie voles (total of 16 specimens) was present. Cottontail remains were found in 4, opossum remains in 2, and domestic cow in 1; in each case, these foods were apparently taken as carrion. One stomach each contained per­simmon, voles (Microtus sp.), deer mice, and grasshoppers.

We still receive numerous complaints of coyotes killing livestock, and more attention needs to be paid to these reports. We have good evidence that at least some of the al­leged killings by coyotes were due to dogs. It is extremely difficult to determine after the fact whether a coyote, a dog, or a coyote-dog hybrid is responsible for damage to livestock. All may kill in a similar fashion, and distin­guishing between the tracks of dogs and coyotes is practically impossible. Dog owners and farmers may be quick to blame coyotes for killings actually done by domestic dogs. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the coyote is capable of killing poultry and small livestock. Clearly, more information is needed before the role of the coyote can be better assessed.

Another problem that confronts us in de­termining food habits from stomach analyses is whether a certain food item was taken as carrion or represents an animal killed by the coyote.
REPRODUCTION (bow chicka woof woof)

Pairs of coyotes are seen in late winter, and copulation probably oc­curs in January and February. There is con­siderable evidence from other states that a mated pair remains together for prolonged periods—perhaps even life (Young and Jackson, 1951). The gestation period is about 60 to 63 days. One litter, averaging from 5 to 7 young, is produced each year.

The young are usually born in under­ground burrows, sections of which are enlarged to form a chamber about 3 feet in diameter to accommodate the family. C. W. Bussel noted that dens were frequently con­structed on knolls or other elevated places on the prairie. Evidently this allows the adults to more easily detect potential danger (Hahn, 1909). There are also reports of young being born in hollow logs. Bussel told Hahn that coyotes defended the den site against dogs venturing near it. He also thought the young were "moved about a great deal" after they were a month old, especially after man or dogs came near the den.

David M. Brooks examined a gravid female (Newton County) on 7 February, but did not record the number of young. A female killed on 5 March (Sullivan County) contained 5 embryos.
PARASITES

Four kinds of external para­sites were found on fifteen Indiana coyotes examined to date—a flea, a chigger, and two ticks (Table 166).
Table 166
Ectoparasites and other associates of Canis latrans (n = 15) from Indiana
Parasites Parasites Hosts Parasitized

Total Average Total Percent
Fleas (Siphonaptera) Cediopsylla simplex 18 1.2 2 13.3
Chigger Mites (Trombiculidae) Eutrombicula alfreddugesi 9 0.60 1 6.7
Ticks (I.xodides) Ixodes cookei Dermacentor variabilis 4
2 0.27
0.13 1
1 6.7
6.7


The intestinal tracts of eleven coyotes have been examined for internal parasites. Nine of them harbored a total of 123 cestodes (11.2 per host). Seven yielded 59 nematodes (5.4 per host).
DECIMATING FACTORS

Man and the automobile are the major enemies of the coyote in Indiana.
TAXONOMY
Cam's latrans thamnos Jackson may be the subspecies inhabiting most of Indiana, although C. l. frustror Woodhouse could also be present (Hall and Kelson, 1959).
SELECTED REFERENCES
.

Sperry, 1941;

Whiteman, 1940; Young and Jackson, 1951.

TL;DR!!!!!

Abstract. Factors influencing the likelihood that a coyote, Canis latrans, will disperse or remain in its natal pack are not well understood. The social and nutritional factors influencing the dispersal of resident coyotes in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming were examined by observing 49 coyotes from five resident packs for 2456 h from January 1991 to June 1993.

One of two strategies was adopted: disperse or remain in the natal pack (philopatry). Dispersing coyotes were low-ranking pups, or low-ranking betas, who spent little time with other pack members and were typically subordinate during interactions with other members of their pack. Dominant (alpha) coyotes and higher-ranking betas did not disperse. Dispersers had little or no access to ungulate carcasses during winter compared with higher-ranking, philopatric individuals in the pack.

The ability to capture small mammals also became important in determining which animals remained or dispersed. When pack size increased in the winter of 1992–1993, possibly intensifying competition at ungulate carcasses, philopatric pups and betas captured small mammals at a higher rate than dispersing coyotes. Individuals that remained in the pack were dominant and higher-ranking, typically had greater access to carcasses in their respective packs and captured small mammals at a higher rate than dispersing individuals when pack sizes were largest. Philopatric coyotes remained within their pack with the objective of advancing to the alpha breeding position. Low-ranking, subordinate coyotes left their natal pack and attempted to establish themselves in either adjacent or distant territories.

Dispersal plays a major role in the regulation, spatial distribution, size and genetic structure of animal populations (Hamilton 1972; Lidicker 1975; Taylor & Taylor 1977). Although dispersal has been documented in many coyote, Canis latrans, and wolf, C. lupus, populations (e.g. Andelt 1985; Mech 1987; Fuller 1989; Gese & Mech 1991), the mechanisms triggering an animal to leave its pack or social unit are not well understood. Christian (1970) proposed the social subordination hypothesis, in which a high level of aggression from dominant animals forces low-ranking individuals to disperse. In contrast, Bekoff (1977a) proposed the social cohesion hypothesis, that individuals that do not develop strong ties to their group early in life will be most likely to disperse.

Other proximate causes for dispersing may include lack of breeding opportunities, physiological changes (Holekamp 1984, 1986), reduced food intake or availability (Messier 1985; Harrison 1992), increased social pressures associated with increased density (Snyder 1961; Van Vleck 1968) and ectoparasite load.

Among canids, captive studies of coyotes (Knowlton & Stoddart 1983) and wolves (Zimen 1976, 1981) suggest that increased aggression and reduced access to carcasses may either force a subordinate animal to disperse or cause the animal to leave voluntarily (Packard & Mech 1980). Similarly, a study of free-ranging red foxes, Vulpes vulpes, in England showed an increase in sub-adult fighting injuries at the start of the dispersal period and a greater level of bite wounding on smaller males (White & Harris 1994). In contrast, Harris & White (1992) reported that red fox pups that received more grooming than other litter-mates were less likely to disperse. They concluded, however, that neither the social sub-ordination hypothesis nor the social cohesion hypothesis alone explained the dispersal behaviour of foxes (White & Harris 1994).

Owing to the secretive and elusive nature of canids (Mech 1974; Kleiman & Brady 1978), examination of the social and nutritional factors influencing dispersal in free-ranging canid populations is difficult. Detailed observation of identified individuals is prerequisite to increasing understanding of why some animals leave their natal pack but others stay (Bekoff 1989).

Coyotes were last studied in Yellowstone National Park in the 1940s and early 1950s, after the predator control programme in the park had ceased (Murie 1940; Robinson & Cummings 1951). Coyotes in Yellowstone have since been unexploited and are now tolerant of a stationary observer (e.g. Gese & Grothe 1995). We were able to collect information on each individual coyote in five resident packs during three winters. Coyote pups spent less time feeding on ungulate carcasses than alpha and beta coyotes, suggesting resource partitioning between pack members (Gese et al. 1996a). Moreover, pups were less experienced hunters of small mammals than older coyotes (Gese et al. 1996b).

Differences in social rank combined with reduced access to carcasses may cause pups or other older individuals to disperse. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the interaction of the social and nutritional factors influencing dispersal of individual coyotes from their resident pack. We predicted that, compared with philopatric individuals, dispersing coyotes would (1) be less dominant in interactions with other pack members and hence would be lower-ranking individuals in the pack, (2) spend less time with other pack members, (3) have less access to ungulate carcasses and (4) be less successful capturing small mammals.
STUDY AREA AND METHODS

This study was conducted in a 70-km 2 area located in the Lamar River Valley in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming (44)52*N, 110)11*E); elevation is about 2000 m above sea level. The climate is characterized by long, cold winters and short, cool summers (Houston 1982). Mean annual temperature and precipitation is 1.8)C and 31.7 cm, respectively, with most of the annual precipitation falling as snow (Houston 1982).

Seven habitats were identified in the study area including forest, mesic meadow, mesic shrub-meadow, riparian, grassland, sage grassland and road (Gese et al. 1996a). Major ungulate species in the study area during winter included elk, Cervus elaphus, mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, bison, Bison bison, and big-horn sheep, Ovis canadensis. A few moose, Alces alces, and white-tailed deer, O. virginianus, were in the valley, and pronghorn antelope, Antilocapra americana, were present during summer. A major food source for coyotes during the winter was elk carrion (Murie 1940; Gese ET al., 1996a). Small mammal species in the area included microtines, Microtus spp., mice, Peromyscus spp., pocket gophers, Thomomys talpoides, and ground squirrels, Spermophilus armatus. Lagomorphs were not present in the valley.

Coyotes were captured with padded leg-hold traps with attached tranquilizer tabs (Balser 1965). Coyotes were immobilized (Cornely 1979) for handling, then weighed, sexed and radio-collared. We removed the first vestigial pre-molar from the lower jaw for aging by counting the cementum annuli (Linhart & Knowlton 1967).

Pups were captured at the den when 10–12 weeks old, ear-tagged, and surgically implanted with an intra-peritoneal transmitter. Coyotes were classified into age classes of pup ( <12 months), yearling (12–24 months), or adult (>24 months).

Coyotes were classified either as members of a resident pack or as transients. Resident packs used and actively defended one unique area or territory, and transients displayed nomadic movements over a large area (Bowen 1981; Gese et al. 1988).

Direct open-field observations were made of both marked (radio collared, implanted or ear-tagged) and unmarked but identifiable (pelage coloration, pelage pattern and physical characteristics) coyotes during daylight hours, usually between 0700 and 2000 hours, with a #10–45 spotting scope. Nocturnal observations were collected using a night-vision scope during clear, moonlight nights.

To maintain reliable and consistent interpretation of behaviours (Lehner 1979; Martin & Bateson 1993), E.M.G. trained each observer for a minimum of 5–7 days. To avoid repeated sampling of the same pack or individual (Morrison et al. 1992), coyote packs were chosen using a random numbers table prior to going into the field. Stratification of individuals within the pack then allowed for selection of the animal to be observed (Gese et al., 1996a,b). The animal chosen was observed continually, recording all social and predatory behaviour (Gese et al. 1996a,b) as well as interactions with other coyotes.

Coyotes were observed from mid-October to July; tall grass in the study area precluded observation in August and September.

Visual locations of predation events (Gese et al. 1996b), bed sites, scent marks, carcass sites, territorial defense and other activities were recorded to the nearest 10 m on 1:24 000 U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system.

Territorial boundaries were determined by locations of pathways used during scent marking and territorial defense. Visual locations were used because radiotelemetry locations in the valley were highly inaccurate (triangulation errors averaged 1.4 km from reference transmitters; range of error was 0.25–6 km).

To examine the influence of social factors on dispersal, coyotes within a resident pack were classified into different social classes based upon the sex-specific dominance hierarchies observed within each resident pack. Coyotes were ranked within the linear dominance hierarchy of each pack based upon their display of expressive behaviours for dominance or submission with each pack member (Schenkel 1947, 1967; Mech 1970; Zimen 1975) and the direction of submission and agonistic behaviour (Lockwood 1979). Annual dominance matrices were constructed for each sex class in each pack to identify the social order of the pack members.

Social classes included alphas (the dominant, breeding adult male and female), betas (adults and yearlings subordinate to alphas, but dominant over pups) and pups (young-of-year which were subordinate to both alphas and betas).

We recorded the number of times each individual was located with another pack member at the beginning of each observation bout as a measure of the level of disassociation from the pack. We examined the influence of food resources on dispersal by recording the number of carcasses (elk, mule deer and bison) each coyote was observed to visit and the length of time spent feeding on the carcass. We calculated a carcass access index by multiplying the mean length of time spent feeding on a carcass (in hours) by the number of carcasses visited by that individual.

Because coyotes may hunt small mammals in response to reduced access to carcasses (Gese ET al., 1996a), we also measured each coyote’s capture rate of small mammals. We recorded the number of prey taken by each coyote per hour it was active. Because many dispersers left in early winter, we used the small mammal capture rates recorded in October–December for coyotes observed during the winters of 1991–1992 and 1992–1993. For the winter of 1990–1991, we used the capture rate during April–May, because observations were not initiated until after January.

Litter sizes presented in the text were the numbers of pups emerging from the natal den in early May. A coyote was defined as a ‘known disperser’ if the animal left its territory and was subsequently located or killed outside the territory. ‘Probable dispersers’ were animals that left the territory and were not located again.

Coyotes with transmitters that were found dead were ‘known deaths’. Pups classed as ‘probable deaths’ were animals that disappeared from the pack at an age too young for them to be independent and survive on their own. Coyotes classed as ‘unknown fate’ were pups that did not have transmitters and disappeared from the pack prior to initiation of behavioural observations. These animals either died or dispersed (i.e. they were old enough to disperse and disappeared during the time of parvovirus susceptability, but they did not have transmitters). Daily total snow depth was recorded by the National Park Service at a permanent weather station located at the Lamar Valley Ranger Station in the study area. The amount of ungulate carcass biomass available to the coyotes was measured by recording the size and number of carcasses fed upon by the coyotes (Gese et al. 1996a), then converting each carcass into carcass biomass following the procedure by Houston (1978). This conversion accounted for the weight loss of the animal at the time of death, then subtracted the weight of parts of the carcass not eaten by coyotes (i.e. carcass weight minus the rumen and skeleton). We compared social and nutritional characteristics of philopatric individuals to dispersing coyotes using a Student’s t-test (Steel & Torrie 1980).

We compared the proportion of observations that each coyote was located with another pack member, the proportion of interactions in which each coyote was dominant over another pack member, and each coyote’s small mammal capture rate. We used only pups and betas in these analyses because alpha coyotes were not observed to disperse. All values presented for dispersing coyotes are the social and nutritional characteristics of those individuals prior to dispersal. Many coyotes dispersed or died in early fall, prior to initiation of behavioural observations in October. Therefore, our observations, analyses and conclusions are based solely upon those coyotes still present in the pack in mid-October.
RESULTS

From January 1991 to June 1993, we observed 49 resident coyotes from five packs for 2456 h. Of the 49 coyotes observed, 27 were males, 20 were females and two unmarked coyotes were of unknown sex. We collared or implanted 28 coyotes with radiotransmitters, and 21 were recognizable from physical characteristics. We observed 2366 interactions between pack members, allowing us to construct dominance matrices in each resident pack. We recorded 9349 visual locations of the coyotes for determination of territory size and boundaries.
Environmental Conditions

The first winter of observation was mild, with little carcass biomass available to the coyotes in the Lamar River Valley (Fig. 3a). Maximum snow depth was 30 cm and the amount of known carcass biomass was less than 170 kg/week. Coyotes were dependent upon small mammals, mostly voles (Microtus spp.), as their major food item during this winter. The second winter of observation was characterized by deeper snow cover and higher carcass biomass (Fig. 3b).

This winter had an early snowfall followed by a thaw, which re-froze into an ice layer on the ground and led to an early initiation of winter die-off of ungulates. Maximum snow depth was 46 cm and known carcass biomass exceeded 200 kg/week for 10 weeks. The third winter of observation was similar to the second winter, with deep snow cover and high amounts of carcass biomass. Maximum snow depth was 63 cm and there were 6 weeks in which known carcass biomass was greater than 200 kg/week.
Pack Histories

The coyotes in Lamar Valley were organized into relatively large packs with distinct territories. Territorial boundaries were scent-marked and actively defended (E. M. Gese, unpublished data). A pack consisted of an alpha pair and associated pack members, usually related offspring.

Construction of dominance matrices for each pack demonstrated the presence of a social order or hierarchy among females and males. The social organization and presence of a dominance hierarchy in each pack was similar to that described in a wolf pack (Schenkel 1947, 1967; Mech 1970; Zimen 1975, 1981). The large packs we observed were probably a consequence of the combination of abundant prey biomass and the lack of exploitation in the study area.
Bison pack

The alpha female had four pups in 1990, with only one pup remaining through winter. She had six pups in 1991. Only three pups remained by October when observations began.

Of the three remaining pups, the low-ranking male pup dispersed into an adjacent territory in January 1992 and was found dead in March. The lone female pup probably dispersed in June 1992. The alpha male of the previous winter was killed by a car in December 1991, and the highest-ranking beta male assumed the alpha position.

The pack produced two litters of pups in 1992. The alpha female had seven pups, and the high-ranking beta female had five pups in a separate den. Only three pups remained by winter; none of these dispersed.

The alpha male of the previous winter was displaced by the highest-ranking beta male. The former alpha male was relegated to the position of the second-ranking beta male. This change in the alpha position occurred between the time of the last observations in July and our first observations in October.
Druid pack

No pups were observed in 1990. The alpha female had six pups in 1991, but only four remained by June. The low-ranking pup dispersed more than 60 km in January, and two other pups remained through the winter. The alpha female had five pups in 1992, and only one pup remained through the winter. The alpha male of the two previous winters was killed by a car in December, and the highest-ranking beta male assumed the alpha position.

He was paired with the alpha female within 4 days of the death of her mate. A beta male that had dispersed as a pup the previous winter returned in May as the low-ranking beta male.
Fossil Forest pack

The alpha female produced four pups in 1990, but only two pups remained by January. The alpha female had six pups in 1991.

At the initiation of observations in October, only three pups remained. The high-ranking female pup was killed by a car in December. The two remaining pups stayed through the winter. The alpha female had a minimum of five pups in 1992.

We also captured and radio-collared two other pups in the autumn, but it is not known whether they were from the original litter or dispersers from other packs. Both pups left the area immediately after capture.

A third pup captured in the fall was the low-ranking male in the pack and dispersed in December. A non-marked female pup, which was the low-ranking female, probably dispersed in February. The low-ranking beta male apparently dispersed in January. Another beta male (M379) dispersed into an adjacent pack (Norris) in an attempt to become alpha male in that pack. He was observed paired and scent-marking with the alpha female of Norris, but was displaced by another male and returned to his natal pack, where he remained the second-ranking beta male below his dominant brother.
Norris pack

No pups were whelped in 1990. We observed only three pups emerge from the natal den in May 1991, with only one pup remaining by winter. The low-ranking beta female, who was dominated by the female pup, dispersed in January.

The low-ranking beta male, who was integrated into the pack in November, probably dispersed in May 1992. The alpha female had eight pups in 1992 with two pups dispersing in the autumn; the female pup dispersed more than 40 km away. Only one pup, which was the low-ranking animal in the female hierarchy, remained during winter, then apparently dispersed in April 1993. The alpha male of the previous two winters was found dead in January 1993 and the social structure of the pack deteriorated.

The alpha female left the territory for a month and was observed mating with three different males in the valley. During her absence, the Soda Butte pack usurped half of the Norris territory (Fig. 2).

When she returned with a male from the Fossil Forest pack (M379), they were continually chased from the territory by the Soda Butte alpha pair and finally settled in a smaller remnant of the original Norris territory. Another male displaced M379 from the alpha position, then that male was also displaced from the alpha position (Fig. 2). No pup production was observed in 1993. The high-ranking beta male of the pack, which did not assume the alpha position, dispersed and became a transient in the valley.
Soda Butte pack

The alpha female had five pups in 1990, with four pups remaining through the winter. The alpha female had four pups in May 1991, but only one pup remained by June (Fig. 2).

The lone pup then dispersed 17 km in January 1992. The low-ranking beta female made many pre-dispersal forays into neighbouring territories during February and March, but did not disperse until the next winter. The alpha female had nine pups in 1992. Two pups dispersed by November.

Of the nine pups born, only one pup remained through the winter. The low-ranking beta female dispersed in March 1993 and apparently became the alpha female in the adjacent pack north of Soda Butte.
Influence of Social Rank and Dominance

The social rank and level of dominance in the pack hierarchy influenced whether a coyote dispersed or stayed. In the first winter of study, observations of the five resident packs began in January 1991 after many pups had died or dispersed. Thirteen pups were known to have been born in three packs in 1990, of which six had either died or dispersed prior to the beginning of observations in January 1991. None of the seven remaining pups, nor any of the alphas and betas, dispersed throughout the winter. These philopatric individuals were dominant in an average of 30% of their interactions with other pack members (Table V). Comparisons between philopatric coyotes and dispersing individuals were not possible for this winter, because no dispersal occurred from January to July 1991.

During the second winter of study, all six coyotes that dispersed or probably dispersed during winter were the low-ranking individuals in their respective packs; i.e. they were subordinate to all the pack members above them in the dominance hierarchy. Four of the dispersers were pups and two were older beta coyotes; no alphas or high-ranking betas dispersed.

Dispersers were dominant in an average of 8% of their interactions with other pack members, and philopatric animals were dominant in an average of 37% of their interactions (t=3.26 DF=21, P=0.0019). When we controlled for age (i.e. used only pups), we found that philopatric pups were the dominant individual in an average of 30% of their interactions with other pack members, but dispersing pups were dominant in an average of 6% of their interactions (t="2.14, df=8, P=0.065). In packs with two surviving pups of the same sex (i.e. Bison and Druid packs), the dominant pup stayed and the subordinate pup dispersed.

During the third winter of study, eight coyotes dispersed or apparently dispersed from their respective packs. Three dispersers were pups and five others were betas. All three pups were the lowest-ranking individuals in their packs, and three of the five betas that dispersed were the lowest or next-to-lowest ranking betas. None of the alphas and only one high-ranking beta dispersed. Philopatric animals were dominant in an average of 35% of their inter-actions with other pack members, and dispersers were dominant in an average of 11% of their interactions (t=2.54, DF=28, P=0.008).

Percentage of Observations with Another Pack Member The percentage of observations with another pack member differed between philopatric coyotes and dispersers. Behavioural observations collected on 10 philopatric pups and betas in the first winter showed that they were observed with another pack member an average of 38% of the time. During the second winter, dispersing coyotes (N=6) and philopatric individuals (N=17, pups and betas only) were observed an average of 15% and 37% of the time, respectively, with other pack members (t=4.18, DF=21, P=0.0002). When we controlled for age (i.e. used only pups), we found that philopatric pups (N=6) were located with other pack members a mean of 36% of the time, and pups that later dispersed (N=4) were located with other pack members a mean of 18% of the time (t="2.33, df=8, P=0.048).

During the third winter, dispersers (N=8) were observed with other pack members an average of 19% of the time, and philopatric animals (N=22) were with other pack members during an average of 27% of the observations (t=1.38, DF=28, P=0.08).
Access to Ungulate Carcasses

We were unable to compare the carcass access index of dispersers to philopatric animals directly, owing to differences in the number of carcasses available to each pack. A consistent trend existed, however. We had no observations on dispersers in the first winter to compare with philopatric coyotes. During the second winter, however, all the dispersing coyotes typically had low access to carcasses within their respective packs. Alphas and higher-ranking betas typically had the highest carcass access index in their pack. Again, in the third winter the dispersing coyotes were typically low-ranking coyotes that were subordinate to the other coyotes in the pack, and typically had little or no access to carcasses within their respective pack.
Capture Rate of Small Mammals

A coyote’s ability to capture small mammals appeared to be important in determining whether an animal dispersed or stayed. During the first winter, the philopatric coyotes captured an aver-age of 1.4 small mammals/h. During the second winter, capture rates by dispersers (N=6) and philopatric pups and betas (N=17) averaged 2.4 and 2.3 prey/h, respectively (t="0.227, DF=21, P=0.411). In the third winter, dispersing coyotes captured small mammals at about half the rate (X=1.2 prey/h) attained by philopatric pups and betas (X=2.2 prey/h; t=3.42, DF=28, P=0.001).
DISCUSSION

Proximate mechanisms influencing mammalian dispersal patterns are varied and involve both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Captive studies of both wolves and coyotes indicate that subordinate animals are harassed by animals of higher social rank and denied equal access to food resources. This behaviour pattern either prompts low-ranking individuals to dissociate from the pack or requires the investigator to remove them to prevent injury (Zimen 1976, 1981; Knowlton & Stoddart 1983). The researchers concluded that, if given the opportunity, these captive subordinates would have dispersed (Zimen 1976, 1981; Knowlton & Stoddart 1983). A common characteristic among all dispersing coyotes on our study area was that they were low-ranking pups or beta animals in their packs. They spent little time with other pack members, were almost always subordinate when interacting with other coyotes and had little access to ungulate carcasses. These findings all support the hypothesis that young animals may be less successful at competing for resources against older individuals in the pack, and thus are predisposed to dispersal (Macdonald 1980; Fritts & Mech 1981).

Low-ranking coyotes may be predisposed to disperse from their natal pack (Bekoff 1977b), because an animal’s social rank within the dominance hierarchy may be established early in life (Fox 1969; Mech 1970; Bekoff 1974, 1978; Knight 1978). Our findings that dispersing coyotes (prior to their dispersal move) were submissive, spent little time with other pack members and had little access to ungulate carcasses, suggest that these interrelated factors were a direct result of their social rank. The factors that influence an animal’s social rank early in life are speculative. Body size may influence the social ranking of a pup early in life (Fuller & DuBuis 1962; Knight 1978). White & Harris (1994) found a higher incidence of wounding among smaller male red foxes that dispersed.

Food resources appeared to influence the timing of coyote dispersal and the number of individuals that remained in the pack over winter.

During the first winter with low carcass biomass in the valley, dispersal had already occurred by January and pack size was 4.6 coyotes. During the second winter, with more ungulate carcasses in the valley, some animals did not disperse until mid- or late-winter, and pack size increased to 5.8 coyotes as more coyotes remained in their pack. During the final winter, with similar high ungulate carcass biomass, many coyotes did not disperse until late winter and pack size increased to 6.6 coyotes. Food resources influenced how long and how many coyotes could remain in the pack. In Maine, low densities of deer and alternative prey were believed to prevent delayed dispersal and pack formation in coyotes (Harrison 1992). In Canada, Messier (1985) found a higher incidence of extra-territorial movements by wolves in an area with low prey abundance compared with an area with high prey density. The finding that small mammal capture rates by dispersers and philopatric animals were not different during the second winter, but were different the third winter, may indicate the influence of both pack size and food resources on dispersal.

When pack size was 5.8 coyotes, the level of competition around carcasses may have been low enough that the ability to capture small mammals was unimportant. When pack size was higher during the third winter, however, dispersers were less successful than philopatric animals at capturing small mammals.

Perhaps with increased pack size, competition at carcasses intensified. Animals that compensated for this reduction in carcass access by hunting small mammals could fulfill their energy requirements and remain in the pack. In contrast, individuals with low access to carcasses and that were also unable to capture small mammals at a high rate may have elected to disperse from their territory and seek resources elsewhere. Thus, when competition for carcasses increases to certain levels with increasing pack size, an individual’s skill and ability to capture small mammals may become very important in determining whether it remains or disperses. Nine of the 14 dispersers left immediately before (December) or during the breeding season (January and February). All interactions between pack members become more intense and aggression increases during the breeding season (Schenkel 1947; Rabb et al. 1967), which may force the subordinate animals to leave the pack (Zimen 1976).

The breeding season for coyotes in Lamar Valley also coincides with the time of year when deep snow accumulates, making capture of small mammals difficult (Gese ET al., 1996b), and forcing greater reliance upon ungulate carcasses.

The young, subordinate individuals that we observed had little chance of breeding within their natal territory in the near future (Figs 1, 2) and had little access to carcasses. The combination of increased aggression during the breeding season and competition around carcasses could culminate in their dispersal. When more than one individual left the pack (Fossil Forest and Norris packs in 1992–1993), the lowest-ranking coyote left first. Although we observed dominant–submissive interactions between all the coyotes when they interacted with one another, and some subordinate individuals were harassed by older coyotes causing these subordinates to dissociate from the pack, we never observed overt aggression in which pack members forcibly drove the subordinate individual out of the territory. Rather, we believe that a culmination of low social rank, reduced access to carcasses and little opportunity for breeding causes an animal to leave its territory voluntarily. The fact that two dispersers were later re-integrated into their natal pack suggests that they had left voluntarily the first time. Possibly, they were able to remain in the pack the second time because the social and/or nutritional pressures within the natal territory had lessened.

One of the primary objectives of dispersal is to find a mate and reproduce (Howard 1960; Lidicker 1975). Two of the dispersing coyotes were successful in integrating into another pack. One pup (M412) joined a pack outside Lamar Valley, but we do not know whether it reproduced in that pack. A beta female (F600) dispersed into an adjacent pack and successfully acquired the alpha female position. Two dispersers (M379, M240) returned to their natal pack after unsuccessfully attempting to join another pack. The success or failure of the other long-range dispersers was unknown because they dispersed to areas outside the park. Wolf pups in Minnesota had low success in pairing with another wolf after dispersal, but adults that dispersed had relatively high success (Gese & Mech 1991). The size, experience and sexual maturity of dispersing adults may allow them to successfully compete against other animals, but pups may be easily displaced from a new pack or area (Gese & Mech 1991).

In contrast to the dispersing individuals, some high-ranking philopatric coyotes were able to eventually advance to the breeding position within their pack. When an alpha member of the pack was killed (N=2) or displaced (N=1), the highest-ranking beta assumed the alpha position or was responsible for displacing the alpha animal. In another case when the alpha male died (Norris pack), the high-ranking male was apparently not accepted by the alpha female, and she left the territory in search of a new mate. During her 1-month absence, the adjacent pack usurped half of her territory.

Inbreeding avoidance, mate competition and resource competition have been proposed as ultimate reasons for dispersal (Greenwood 1980; Moore & Ali 1984; Waser 1985). Our findings indicate that all three hypotheses may be involved in the dispersal patterns of coyotes in our study area. Resource competition (i.e. access to ungulate carcasses) was related to social rank and influenced the likelihood of dispersing. The ability to capture small mammals also influenced dispersal when pack sizes were highest. Increased pack size may have caused increased competition at the primary winter food source (carcasses). Mate competition could also be involved, because many of the coyotes dispersed before or during the breeding season.

Increased aggression during the breeding season (Zimen 1976), suppression of breeding behaviour (Rabb et al. 1967) and lack of breeding opportunities could all influence dispersal patterns. A balance between out breeding and inbreeding may also exist within the coyote social system. The observation that many pups and betas dispersed, and that the Norris alpha female did not pair with the older beta male in the pack (possibly her father), suggests some level of inbreeding avoidance. The three observations of a beta male within the pack becoming the alpha male suggests that some inbreeding could occur, if those beta males were offspring or closely related to the alpha female.

Unfortunately, the genetic relatedness of those beta males and alpha females was unknown. In conclusion, our findings offer support for the social subordination hypothesis (Christian 1970).

Coyotes that dispersed were low-ranking individuals that were subordinate to other animals in the dominance hierarchy, spent little time with other pack members, had little access to carcasses and were less skilled at hunting small mammals during the year when pack size was greatest. We emphasize, however, that we never observed dominant coyotes chasing a pack member and forcing the subordinate coyote to disperse.

Instead, we believe that the culmination of different social and nutritional pressures reaches a certain level, and the individual voluntarily leaves the territory to seek resources (food and/or breeding opportunities)elsewhere. Whether affiliative behaviour (i.e. the social cohesion hypothesis) played a role in the early stages of life for these dispersing coyotes is unknown. We were unable to collect information on individual pups at the den, and our observations began in the autumn when many pups had already dispersed. The social subordination and social cohesion hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and both may play a role at different life stages in influencing the dispersal of coyotes in Yellowstone National Park.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Patricia Terletzky, Ed Schauster, AldenWhittaker, Alexa Calio, Melissa Pangraze, LaraSox, Levon Yengoyan, Danny Rozen, Jeanne Johnson, John Roach and Valeria Vergara for assistance with behavioural observations; Scott Grothe, Kezha Hatier and numerous technicians for field assistance; John Varley of the National Park Service for logistical support; John Cary and John Coleman for computer programming; and Peter Arcese, Jeffery Baylis, Robert Garrott, James Malcolm, Warren Porter and Peter Waserfor review of the manuscript. Funding and support was provided by the Department of Wildlife Ecology and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service (cooperative agreement 1268-1-9001 to R. L. Crabtree), National Geographic Society, the Biology Department at Montana State University, Earthwatch and the Hornocker Wildlife Research

In Yellowstone, the master adapter learns to deal with wolves

Described by a trapper in the 1830s as a "beautiful Vale" with "wild romantic scenery," the Lamar Valley stretches 1 to 2 miles wide and 7 miles long. High, rounded hills snuggle around the sagebrush and meadow of the valley floor. With its abundance of elk, bison, and other big game, this corner of Wyoming is sometimes called North America's little Serengeti. A river even runs through it.

Animal ecologists are drawn to this piece of Yellowstone National Park to study the hidden ways of coyotes. Coyotes are common and extremely successful throughout North America, even in urban areas (see sidebar), but they are wary of people and stay largely out of sight. Most of what scientists know about their behavior has come indirectly -- not from observation, but from radio signals transmitted by animals that have been caught, fitted with a collar, and released.

In their Lamar Valley sanctuary, coyotes are usually indifferent to people -- or even curious about them -- giving researchers a rare opportunity to observe the animals directly. "As long as you sit and watch, they don't mind you being there," says Eric M. Gese of Utah State University in Logan. His recently published studies, based on 2,500 hours of observation over 3 years, detail coyote life in the valley.

Until a few years ago, however, something had been missing from the ecosystem. Wolves were eradicated from Yellowstone and most of the United States by the 1930s, leaving the coyote as top dog in the game-rich preserve.

Then, in 1995, amid much fanfare, the National Park Service released a group of Canadian wolves into the valley (SN: 11/30/96, p. 344). From their hillside perches, researchers are now watching the two canines get reacquainted.

There have been more than a few dogfights and a significant number of coyote deaths. Robert L. Crabtree of Yellowstone Ecosystem Studies in Bozeman, Mont., is studying the dynamics of the wolf-coyote interaction for the park service. He estimates that the coyote population was down by about 50 percent at the start of this, the third winter with wolves. Yet researchers have little doubt that the adaptable coyote is learning to cope with the newcomer and will remain an important, if chastened, predator in the system.

Animal ecologists have been studying the Lamar Valley coyotes off and on since the 1930s. In addition to the animals' amenability, the lay of the land lends itself to research into animal behavior. The hillsides form natural observation posts with a good view of the relatively narrow valley and the resident coyote packs.

"Once you get some snow, they're highly visible," Gese says of the animals. He spent 3 years in Lamar, beginning in 1991, before the wolves arrived, gathering baseline data on 50 coyotes in five packs.

Each winter morning before sunrise, he and his coworkers got up, layered on underwear, fleece, and outerwear, then left their uninsulated wood cabin to hike slowly up the snow-packed hillsides. They would spend the 12-hour day with spotting scopes trained on particular packs and individuals and record the frequency of their behaviors -- traveling, howling, hunting, feeding, resting, socializing, marking, sitting, or other activities, such as digging. Around a full moon, the scientists would take turns keeping an eye on the animals at night, too.

With abundant prey and no other competition in the valley, the coyotes carried on like wolves, the researchers found. Instead of socializing in twos or threes, as coyotes do elsewhere, they maintained packs of up to 10 animals. The social structure within the pack mimicked that of wolves, with a ruling, or alpha, male and female usually as sole breeders. "The alpha male is cop of the territory," says Gese. This male spends a lot of his active time scent marking -- urinating, defecating, or scratching the ground -- Gese reports in the November 1997 Animal Behaviour. The alpha male makes five marks per hour, more than twice the rate of beta coyotes. Scent marking warns neighboring coyote packs not to stray across territorial boundaries.

When an intruder did venture over the line, the alpha male would give chase and the intruder would typically exit -- "very fast," says Gese. If the alpha male caught the intruder, the animals would roll and spar, but the intruder was never killed -- a difference from wolf behavior.

Once the intruder managed to get out, "the resident would break off the chase literally right at the border," says Gese. "There it would bark and scent mark and scratch the ground, make quite a commotion for 10 or 15 minutes, then head back to the pack or whatever it was doing."

Most of what it was doing was resting, especially during the deep snows of the winter months, according to a May 1996 report by Gese, Robert L. Ruff of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Crabtree in the Canadian Journal of Zoology.

The well-insulated coyotes coped with extreme cold by bedding down individually. "I've watched them lie down in a snowstorm and basically become a white lump in the sagebrush," says Gese.

The snow and brutal temperatures helped the coyotes hunt elk and other ungulates. Although they do not depend on these prey, as wolves do, the coyotes took advantage of them in winter, when it didn't take much to bring down the nutritionally stressed ones. "Statistical carrion," Gese calls them.

The coyotes caught elk or deer in five of nine attempts that the researchers observed during winter. For the rest of the year, voles and other small mammals were the coyotes' dietary staple, although coyotes will consume almost anything, a key factor in their adaptability.

With wolves now installed in the valley, coyotes are adopting new feeding habits. They have taken to scavenging the carcasses left by their more efficient cousins -- when the wolves will let them.

Coyotes feed off a carcass. They recently have begun to scavenge meals from animals killed by wolves.

After wolves have killed an elk and eaten a meal, they get "meat drunk," says Crabtree. "They go waddling off for 4 or 5 hours with 15 pounds of meat in their stomach." That's when coyotes move in and scavenge.

Upon their return, wolves will often chase off or attack a scavenging coyote, lunging at and biting the animal for up to 15 minutes. In the course of nearly 1,000 hours of observation, Crabtree and his coworkers witnessed coyotes clashing with wolves 33 times. In 10 instances, the coyote was killed.

It's not literally a dog-eat-dog world, however. "They're killed and left unconsumed, which is evidence that it's competition, not predation," Crabtree says.

Sometimes the wolves tolerate the coyotes. Crabtree says he's seen them feeding side by side on a carcass. In this and other interactions, "it's a numbers game," he says. "Crudely, five coyotes are equivalent to about two wolves." The social status and appetites of the animals also play a role.

As the coyotes have begun to learn about safety in numbers, their packs have become more cohesive though smaller, says Crabtree. They are also rearranging their territories and avoiding the wolves' high-use areas. "They're living on the edge of wolf packs, and they're trying to stay out of an encounter."

Of the 80 well-studied coyotes that maintained a stable population in the early 1990s, Crabtree says, 36 were still alive as of November 1997. He describes the unfolding dynamic in a chapter of Carnivores in Ecosystems, due out next year from Yale University Press.

There are models from other areas that may predict what will happen in Lamar Valley. In Minnesota, as wolves expanded their range in one northern area, they completely eliminated a dozen radio-collared coyotes, says Bill Berg, a wildlife biologist with the Department of Natural Resources in Grand Rapids. To avoid the wolves, the coyote population has shifted south.

Gese says he thinks the situation in Yellowstone will probably mimic that in Montana's Glacier National Park, where wolves arrived on their own from Canada in about 1986 and began reestablishing themselves.

Wendy Arjo of the University of Montana in Missoula has been studying 18 radio-collared coyotes in the park over the past 3 years. She compares her observations with those from a 1980 study, before the wolves returned.

The Glacier coyote population is persisting, although it "does appear to be smaller," says Arjo. "Predators do take a heavy toll." Of her original 18 subjects, 6 have been killed by cougars and 2 by wolves. Three others are unaccounted for.

She has noted other changes in the population. The coyotes have moved away from wolf territories and changed their diet, eating fewer hares and more ungulates, probably from scavenging wolf kills.

Perhaps the most interesting change is morphological. "Coyotes are bigger now," significantly so, Arjo says. The average male coyote has grown from 11.8 kilograms in 1980 to 13.9 kg. Females have grown from an average of 9.9 kg to almost 12 kg. They are longer, too -- by more than 12 centimeters, on average. They may be thriving from the scavenged carcasses, or the smaller coyotes may simply have been killed.

A similar pattern will probably develop in Yellowstone, Arjo says. "I don't think the wolves will wipe out the coyotes. . . . [The coyotes will] definitely figure out who to stay away from. They're pretty flexible."

It's the coyotes' flexibility that accounts for their success, the researchers say. "'Wily coyote' is a pretty good label," says Gese.

He has seen their guile up close.

While studying one of the packs in the valley, "I had this sensation that something was right behind me," Gese recalls. When he eased around, he came face-to-face with one of the beta coyotes, about 5 feet away. A piece of telemetry antenna lay on the ground between them.

With golden eyes focused on the parka-clad figure, the coyote "slowly lowered his mouth, grabbed the antenna, and started backing up with it." As soon as the researcher raised his hand, the coyote dropped the antenna and walked off.

On another occasion, the scouting coyote didn't bother to sneak around. Gese watched a young beta male break away from its pack, cross the river, and climb the hillside to where he was perched. The coyote sat down about 10 feet from Gese and seemed to watch the pack as well, Gese recalls. "After about 15 minutes, he got kind of bored, curled up, and took a nap." An hour or so later, the coyote got up, stretched, yawned, and loped back down the hill.

Coyotes will respond to anything novel in their environment, Gese says, whether a shiny piece of metal or a man.

In the Yellowstone wolves, they have both something new and something old. "Coyotes coevolved with wolves," says Crabtree. "They know how to withstand mortality. They become wary." Indeed, coyotes managed to flourish under the same intense campaign of predator control that all but eliminated wolves.

The ultimate winner of the canine competition is the Yellowstone ecosystem, Crabtree says. As in Minnesota, red foxes have appeared in the wolves' new territory, which they avoided when coyotes were in charge. Without as many coyotes, there are more small mammals available for raptors and other predators to eat.

"Coyotes will decrease," says Crabtree, "but that will cause nothing but an increase in [species] richness."
The Urban Coyote

With its attackers in hot pursuit, the coyote ran for cover, where it hid for 2 1/2 hours.

The setting was downtown Seattle, the attackers a flock of crows, and the refuge an open doorway to an elevator in the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building.

That unusual chase scene took place late last year, according to the Associated Press. The report comes as no surprise to the small group of researchers studying the habits of the urban coyote.

In the last several decades, coyotes have expanded their traditional range in the United States by two-thirds. With the elimination of wolves as competitors and changes in land use, coyotes have fanned out or been transported from their traditional home in the West. They now occupy every state in the continental United States, including hospitable territory in or around many major cities, where their only predator is the car.

"They do well in cities," says Eric York, a National Park Service researcher. He is studying radio-collared coyotes that live half an hour from downtown Los Angeles in the Santa Monica National Recreation Area.

The animals enter urban areas at night, where they hunt rabbits and squirrels that live around the well-watered lawns. Ever the opportunist, coyotes will take the occasional dog as well. York says they also eat apricots and plums from backyard trees.

In Chicago, coyotes live in and around the city in the county's network of nature preserves. Roughly 40 percent of their diet consists of rabbit and 20 percent is deer, according to Wiley Buck of the University of Minnesota in St. Paul. The remainder is a mix of raccoons, other small mammals, fruit, and "traces of domestic cat and garbage."

There is one major urban frontier coyotes haven't seemed to cross. Contrary to Internet postings, there are no coyotes living off cats and leftover lo mein in New York's Central Park, according to Gordon Batcheller of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation in Albany. However, they have been sighted, he says, passing through the Bronx to greener, outlying spaces.

One of our members has a brother in Surgical ICU right now (see link for full detail). We are on an emergency commission call with this one, folks. She needs money raised to get bus/plane tickets to see her brother before he goes with his howl to the moon. Donations are also very appreciative. Any little bit helps, folks

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1069016/

Most people who know of the United States Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control/ Wildlife Services program (ADC) think of it as primarily a livestock protection agency. In 1996, (the most recent year for which statistics are available), ADC reported spending $671,947 to kill 7,494 predators (black bears, coyotes, badgers, bobcats, foxes and mountain lions) in the State of Oregon.

In recent years, as federal budgets have become tighter and ADC has come under increased scrutiny and attack for its traditional activities, this agency has begun looking for new ways to justify and fund its operations. Sadly, ADC has found fertile ground in the urban/ suburban environment. This article attempts to document the increasing frequency with which ADC has been bringing their leg-hold traps, body and neck snares, and sodium cyanide devices, along with a mountain of misinformation, to the Portland metropolitan area.

In and around Portland, Animal Damage Control has sought contracts to conduct predator eradication for a variety of local communities and agencies. In the tri-county area, they have obtained ongoing contracts to work in Clackamas and Washington Counties, and tried, but failed, to acquire a similar contract to work in Multnomah County in 1996. They present themselves as "wildlife experts" equipped to educate the public about how to coexist with wildlife and to resolve urban wildlife problems when they occur. The reality, sadly, has been something quite different.

Rather than educating the public about how to coexist with wildlife, ADC has, instead, exploited the general public's fears, frustrations and misperceptions regarding wildlife and particularly predator species. No one is debating the fact that there is a genuine need to educate the public about the "dos" and "don'ts" of coexisting with wildlife. Conversely, instead of focusing on ways to minimize conflict (removing potential attractants, housing pets indoors, etc.) ADC has, instead, met these concerns with fear-mongering.

Examples in the print media abound. In a March 25, 1996 The Oregonian article, ADC regional supervisor Rod Krischke suggested that "people need to be aware that small children are the size of (coyote) prey." A 1996 Gresham Outlook article had Krischke again discussing the risks coyotes pose to children and then discussing attacks in the wild areas of Canada. In an August 1998 The Oregonian article Dave Williams, Oregon Director of ADC, suggested that when pets vanish without a trace "it is more probable that they were killed by a coyote or a raccoon than a Buick."

The fact is that coyotes will take cats and small dogs, but they are a minor threat among many more prominent risks faced by free-roaming pets (cars, poisons, disease, other free-roaming pets, etc.). The risk of coyote attacks on humans is incredibly small. Spiders, goats and jellyfish account for more injuries in the United States each year than do coyotes. There has never been a documented killing of a human by a coyote in Oregon. In fact, there is only one human death attributed to coyotes over the course of the entire history of the United States.

ADC has used legitimate requests from the general public for information regarding predators as a springboard to gain access to the ears of local politicians. Rather than offering common sense solutions to problems and sound biological information to alleviate unfounded concerns, ADC instead has encouraged members of the general public to lobby local politicians to hire ADC to eradicate local predator populations. After all is said and done, ADC claims that it was the community that came to them, rather than the other way around.

Two 1996 articles, one in the Southwest Connection and the other in The Oregonian, serve as cases in point. In the Southwest Connection article, ADC regional supervisor, Rod Krischke, offers ADC's phone number and then pointedly states that ADC has a coyote extermination program but its "hands are tied because the county doesn't fund the program."

In The Oregonian article, Krischke again gives his number, suggesting that small children are the size of coyote prey, and states that it would require $50,000 to contract with ADC to resolve the coyote problems in Multnomah County.

The good news is that in communities in which there has been public involvement in the development of local predator management policy, the decision has invariably been made to focus on education and coexistence rather than funding the ineffective, expensive and inhumane activities of ADC. Three recent situations serve as case studies:
Case Study 1: Portland International Airport

In October of 1995, a member of the general public walking her dog in a field adjacent to Portland International Airport discovered leg-hold traps set by Animal Damage Control to capture coyotes that had been digging under airport fencing and running onto runways. A large public outcry ensued and the Port of Portland, which manages the airport, responded by creating a new Wildlife Management Specialist position and convening a citizen's advisory panel to help develop a more acceptable and humane policy. They were also concerned that after paying ADC to capture and destroy 10 coyotes, the problem of coyotes on the runway continued to occur. ADC was asked to draft an environmental assessment that would take into account these concerns.

ADC submitted a draft environmental assessment in January of 1996. The assessment stated "the diversity of habitat surrounding the airport and the abundance of wildlife promotes wildlife conflicts.... Effective techniques would include the use of firearms and pyrotechnics to scare birds...lethal shooting of target birds entering aircraft safety zones, and trapping and euthanizing overabundant target species, such as coyotes, starlings, crows, gulls and raccoons that pose immediate hazards to aviation. ADC would also have available body or neck snares, leg-hold traps, calling and shooting, or the M-44 sodium-cyanide device."

The Port of Portland promptly hired a private consultant to develop and implement a different plan. The installation of ground fencing alleviated the coyote problem and no coyotes have been destroyed since the Port ceased to contract with ADC.
Case Study 2: Multnomah County
In 1996, Multnomah County Animal Control, under intense pressure from ADC to contract with them, decided to hire an independent biologist named Allan May to access whether a need really existed. May's report, "Urban Coyotes in Multnomah County Ecosystems," came to five important conclusions:

1. Coyotes, while they did prey on cats, pose a minimal risk to humans
2. Previous attempts elsewhere to eliminate coyotes had been ineffective and extremely expensive.
3. Domestic animals would be placed at risk by current coyote eradication methods.
4. The majority of people reporting coyote sightings either had a favorable (61 percent) or neutral (26 percent) view on these animals.
5. Education and research are fundamentally important in "reducing encounters...in urban environments... (and to) lessen the misperceptions associated with their existence."

The report was instrumental in Multnomah County's decision to focus on education rather than elimination. ADC was not awarded a contract.
Case Study 3: Lake Oswego

During the spring and summer of 1997, residents near Southwood Park in Lake Oswego, a suburb of Portland, had several sightings of coyotes and noted the disappearance of several cats. One resident noted potentially aggressive behavior exhibited by one coyote. However, this resident failed to show up to testify at public hearings and the account was of dubious quality. In an unannounced hearing, ADC suggested that the coyotes presented a high risk to humans. Police Chief Les Youngbar, under the advice of ADC, was quoted in the local paper stating that "the risk of having a small child or an adult with a pet on a leash attacked appears to be a real possibility." ADC lobbied for, and was hired by, the Lake Oswego City Council to eradicate coyotes in Southwood Park using neck snares.

An outcry by the citizens of Lake Oswego forced the city council to revisit the issue at their September meeting. An editorial in the Lake Oswego paper just prior to this meeting stated that humans "have very little to fear from coyotes," and suggested that studying the number of people killed by coyotes was equivalent to "studying the likelihood of rhinos ramming Oregonians...It doesn't happen." The editorial went on to question the expense, effectiveness and risk to humans and pets inherent in neck snaring coyotes and requested a "solution with moderation."

Well over 100 coyote supporters, but just a handful of people in favor of eradication, attended the September hearing. At this hearing, employees Jeff Brent and Mark Lytle testified twice that dogs caught in neck snares typically would not struggle and would not be injured. Despite the dictates of common sense, ADC director David Williams would stand by this statement. In a letter to Brooks Fahy of the Predator Defense Institute dated October 29, 1997, Mr. Williams writes, "when a pet does stray into a snare, it is our experience that it does not fight and is fine when released." We now know from documents obtained from ADC under the Freedom of Information Act that during the very same time period that ADC made these statements, the two agents that testified in Lake Oswego were also setting traps at a ranch in Estacada. Eight dogs were captured in these traps and three of them died.

Brent and Lytle also twice insisted in their testimony that ADC could document "many" and "several" instances in the Portland area in which pets being walked on leashes by their owners had been aggressively attacked by coyotes. However, when pressed on this issue by members of Audubon Society of Portland and Predator Defense Institute, ADC could not document a single instance in which this had actually occurred.

Happily, common sense won the day in Lake Oswego. The City Council voted unanimously to focus on education rather than eradication. Lake Oswego Mayor Bill Klammer was quoted in the Lake Oswego paper as stating, "I made a dire mistake at the previous council meeting. After spending time reading and learning about these animals, I am firmly convinced that coexistence is the only answer."

Unfortunately, not all local situations have turned out so well. In many cases, ADC is hired quietly and goes about their business unnoticed until somebody stumbles upon their activities or something goes dramatically wrong. In West Linn, ADC was hired in 1996, and killed 10 coyotes before it was reported in the mass media. Today, West Linn has a community service officer that deals with their wildlife issues.

Officer Deets stated in a recent conversation that when she was first hired, she spoke personally with Mark Lytle of Animal Damage Control. She was put off by both his suggestion that she use what she considered to be "inhumane" neck snares, and by his advice that she set the traps as secretly as possible in places where the general public would not find out about them. She has ceased working with ADC altogether.

A particularly gruesome ADC project occurred in the town of Estacada. From documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, we know that between October of 1990 and September of 1997, ADC agents visited one sheep ranch in Estacada a staggering 281 times. In order to compensate this landowner for a documented $2,730 in sheep losses to predation, ADC used neck snares, leg-hold traps and M-44 sodium cyanide devices to deliberately destroy 2 bobcats, 55 coyotes and 1 mountain lion. ADC also unintentionally caught and killed 1 black bear, 1 crow, and three dogs. Five more dogs were trapped, but survived and were released. A neighbor, while out looking for his own dogs, was drawn to the site by the stench of rotting flesh and discovered the operation. He found a still living Golden Retriever puppy dangling by its neck from one of the neck snares.

In this instance, ADC failed to adequately notify the neighbors in the vicinity of the operation of their activities. They also failed to adequately notify local hospitals of their use of sodium-cyanide poison. Notification of both neighbors and local hospitals is required in these situations. In their attempts to remove evidence of their activities prior to arrival of the local media, they accidentally left several traps behind, and when the traps later were discovered, the ADC claimed that the livestock had moved them. Their activities clearly contradicted a March 25, 1995 The Oregonian article in which ADC regional supervisor Rod Krischke claimed that his agency "avoids the poisons and traps that kill many animals," as well as the ADC's previous claims that dogs caught in their snares would not be harmed.

Do not assume that your community is immune to the activities of Animal Damage Control*. As ADC comes under increasing attack and budgets are tightened, the need to both justify and fund their continued existence will grow more acute. Urban areas provide a hotbed of wildlife misperceptions and a viable funding base. Many urban governments lack wildlife expertise and will defer blindly to ADC. Despite the off-the-record concerns of many within the state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, there are protocols and agreements in place to channel concerns about problem wildlife to ADC.

The solution is vigilance. Learn what the wildlife policies are in your local community. If wildlife problems arise, know that there are resources available to help. In many cases the "problems" are nothing more than misperceptions. In many other cases, there are humane, biologically sound, common sense solutions that are easy to implement. In a few cases, outside expertise will be required. The Audubon Society of Portland Wildlife Care Center (503.292.0304) can refer you to the available local resources. If you would like to find out more information about the activities of the ADC in Oregon and across the nation, the Eugene-based Predator Defense Institute (541.937.4261) is an excellent resource.

*Please note that Animal Damage Control is a federal agency and is part of the US Department of Agriculture. It should not be confused with our local county animal control agencies, which serve a very different community service. Also please note that Animal Damage Control has recently begun calling itself "Wildlife Services."

The original source for this article is the Audubon Society of Portland Oregon. Any questions or comments about the content should be addressed to that organization.

Web link: https://www.audubonportland.org/wil.....es/damage.html

Each year Wildlife Services spends more than 10 million tax dollars to kill nearly 100,000 predators — an antiquated program that has proven to be inefficient, ineffective, environmentally destructive, and inhumane.
Executive Summary

The problem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s "Wildlife Services" program is that taxpayer money is spent to kill America's wildlife to benefit a minority of western ranchers. These ranchers are under no obligation to improve their practices to reduce conflicts with wildlife.

This report looks at Wildlife Services’ own data from Fiscal Year 2000 — the most recent figures available to the public — to demonstrate some of the many problems with this outdated government program that spends more than $10 million in federal funds to kill nearly 100,000 predators nationwide each year, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions.

We focus on the 17 western states because they account for about half of Wildlife Services' expenditures nationwide (47%), and because in the West most of these expenditures are devoted to agriculture (71%), almost all of which is spent on killing wildlife to protect livestock. In sum, when Congress gives taxpayers dollars to Wildlife Services, the majority goes to the western states, and the majority of that is spent on killing native predators—an antiquated program that has proven to be inefficient, ineffective, and environmentally destructive.

Our report illustrates the following problems.

* $31 million in taxpayer money was spent by Wildlife Services in 2000, nearly half of which ($13.1 million) went toward killing wildlife to protect agriculture, and the vast majority of that ($10.7 million) was spent in the western states.
* Wildlife Services claims it provides a diversity of services that benefit all Americans, but at least in the West, a super majority (71%) of its budget is spent killing wildlife to protect the agriculture industry;
* Because it is subsidized by taxpayers, the cost of killing predators far outweighs the damage due to predators (by about three to one, according to past WS data no longer available to the public). In 2000, we know that far more predators were killed than the reported losses of livestock and pets due to predators;
* How much wildlife does Wildlife Services "service"? In 2000, WS killed 87,000 coyotes, 6000 foxes, 2500 bobcats, and hundreds of badgers, mountain lions, and black bears. Despite its claims that it is switching to non-lethal methods of predator control, WS killed as many predators as ever in 2000.
* WS’ methods used to kill wildlife are not selective, meaning they kill many animals that pose no threat to agriculture. Most are killed from airplanes before livestock even enter an area. The second most common killing technique is poisoning with sodium cyanide traps ("M-44s"), which kill any animal that happens across them (including pets).
* Finally, more and more taxpayer dollars are wasted on this program every year. Despite a supposedly cost-cutting Congress, federal funding of Wildlife Services' agriculture work increases every year, and jumped by more than one third in 2002! [Note: figures on WS’ total budget are more current than the other data in this report]

Predator Conservation Alliance's Solution

Since 1991, Predator Conservation Alliance has been working to reform USDA Wildlife Services (formerly, "Animal Damage Control") such that:

* No tax dollars are used to kill wildlife to protect private livestock, and
* Wildlife Services’ budget helps ranchers to improve their practices to prevent wildlife conflicts.

PCA proposes that any future lethal control methods employed by Wildlife Services be: (1) funded by the agriculture industry, (2) selective against offending animals only, (3) environmentally benign, including no toxics, no harm to wildlife populations, and no risk to people or to pets.

In 2000, U.S. taxpayers spent more than $31 million to support the U.S. Department of Agriculture "Wildlife Services" program, more than $13 million of which was spent on "agriculture" — killing wildlife in order to protect the agriculture industry, especially in the western U.S. These figures show how many tax dollars Wildlife Services spends in each state, and that most of it is spent on "agriculture."

Texas leads the country in federal appropriations spent on WS' agriculture program. Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Colorado each spend more than 90% of their federal appropriations on lethal control of native wildlife.

Regarding the columns of numbers in Table 1 below:

* The first column (Budget Total) reports on the total amount spent by each western state office of Wildlife Services ($40 million total);
* The second column (Amt. of Fed. Apps.) reports on the fraction of each state's budget that is funded by direct federal appropriations (39% on average, and $14.7 million total); and
* The third column (Amt. of Fed. Apps. spent on Ag) reports the percentage of each state's federal appropriations that is spent on Wildlife Services' agriculture program (73% on average, and $10.7 million in the western U.S.).


State Office Budget Total ($) Amount of Federal Appropriations ($)/(%) Federal Apps. Spent on Agriculture ($)/(%)
Arizona 858,048 423,222 (49%) 176,154 (42%)
California 4,847,948 1,458,860 (30%) 992,025 (68%)
Colorado 1,216,439 746,133 (61%) 671,520 (90%)
Idaho 1,326,944 713,796 (54%) 472,682 (66%)
Kansas 135,311 49,518 (37%) 4,871 (10%)
Montana 2,844,099 1,139,067 (40%) 1,094,076 (96%)
Nebraska 649,222 333,797 (51%) 200,280 (60%)
Nevada 1,597,547 772,618 (48%) 558,217 (72%)
New Mexico 2,253,758 1,226,520 (54%) 1,141,400 (93%)
North Dakota 1,249,008 730,996 (59%) 613,328 (84%)
Oklahoma 2,425,995 746,621 (31%) 500,236 (67%)
Oregon 2,115,813 918,791 (43%) 542,087 (59%)
South Dakota 1,460,296 325,222 (22%) 269,130 (83%)
Texas 9,473,702 2,645,488 (28%) 1,863,755 (70%)
Utah 2,064,126 948,371 (46%) 502,709 (53%)
Washington 1,872,561 531,887 (28%) 158,425 (30%)
Wyoming 1,592,159 946,182 (59%) 894,893 (95%)
State Office Total 37,983,012 14,657,089 (39%) 10,655,788 (73%)
State Office Total US N/A N/A 13,060,322
WS Operations Total 67,830,000 31,395,000 (46%) N/A

Similar to the federal appropriations figures on the previous page, agriculture also consumes the lion’s share of Wildlife Services’ total budget in the western U.S. The vast majority (>90%)* of these dollars are spent killing America's predatory wildlife to protect livestock.

* Note: WS no longer reveals to the public the exact amount it spends on livestock protection, but the only other elements of its agriculture work — protecting crops and aquaculture — have accounted for less than 8% of its budget in previous years.

The Upshot — Wildlife Services claims that they do a lot more than just kill wildlife for the agriculture industry, but the numbers reveal that this remains its primary occupation.

This government subsidy is getting worse every year. A supposedly cost-cutting Congress increases Wildlife Services’ budget every year, and by more than one-third in FY2002! (Note: these appropriation figures are more current than the figures in the remainder of this report).

Because it is subsidized by taxpayers, Wildlife Services spends far more effort and money killing predators than the reported financial losses caused by predators. Sheep lossses due to predators can be significant, but the effect of predators on other livestock is negligible compared to other problems. For example, a 1996 report found that cattle losses due to predators average approximately 2%, far behind weather, calving problems, illness, and other problems. Of nine categories for dead or missing cattle, only poison and theft took a lower toll than predators (National Agriculture Statistics Service, 5/26/96). As for preventing sheep losses, lethal control of predators is proven to be only a short-term solution at best.

There would be much more of a balance if the cost of predator control was switched from taxpayers to the livestock industry, because it is simply not cost effective to put so much effort into killing predators. Unfortunately, the imbalance is only increasing — federal funding of WS’ agriculture work increases every year.

How many predators does Wildlife Services kill, and where? Texas leads the nation, the source of one fifth (22%) of all predators killed in 2000. Another 10% of Wildlife Service's killing occurred in Montana. Wildlife Services has killed no predators in South Dakota and very few in Kansas, because those states have found alternative methods to address predator conflicts.

The methods used by Wildife Services to kill predators are not pretty. In addition, they are not selective, and they are not cheap. One third are shot from airplanes (aerial gunning). This typically occurs in the spring before livestock have even entered an area for grazing. WS flies the area and shoots all of the predators in the vicinity, whether or not they are a proven threat to livestock. This method is also dangerous and costly. There have been 18 crashes between 1989 and 1999, resulting in 7 deaths and 21 injuries (http://www.goagro.org/crash.htm). The costs are estimated at $200 - $800 per coyote (J. Wildl. Manage 63:606).

Trapping is the second most common method used to kill predators, including wire neck snares, steel-jawed leghold traps, and others. Poisoning is third, specifically sodium-cyanide coyote traps ("M-44s") that can kill any wildlife or pet that happens across them, and livestock collars filled with Compound 1080, a highly toxic poison once outlawed by the EPA that has no known antidote. Other methods for killing predators include shooting them from the ground and killing coyote pups found in their dens.

Despite Wildlife Services' claims that it only kills depredating animals, few of these methods discriminate between depredating individuals and all other predators on the landscape.
Definition of the Terms

Aerial: Aerial gunning, or shooting from an aircraft, is frequently used for what Wildlife Services calls "preventative" coyote control — WS gunners kill large numbers of coyotes in a certain area before livestock even arrive.

M-44: The M-44 is a spring-loaded, baited device that sprays sodium cyanide into the nose and mouth of whatever animal pulls on the bait. The M-44 is mostly used for coyotes and foxes, but has killed endangered wolves and domestic dogs, among other "non-target" species.

Leg/Foot & Neck: These include snares made of wire and cable.

Leghold: The steel jaw trap is the leghold trap of choice for WS predator control.

Cage: ADC uses a variety of cage traps; the most commonly used cage trap is made of wood and heavy wire.

Spot/Call/Shot: All types of shooting: "Spot" refers to using a spotlight to shoot at night.

Denning: This is the process of finding and killing coyote pups by digging them out of their dens.

Wildlife Services claims that it is reforming its practices and relies less on lethal methods to protect livestock. Its own figures indicate that WS continues to kill as many predators as ever.
References Used in Preparing this Report

PCA created the figures in this report using data from Wildlife Services’ annual tables published every year, and now available on the internet (www.aphis.usda.gov/ws). We relied on data from the following tables in particular:

* "Federal and Cooperative Expenditures, Wildlife Services--Fiscal Year 2000 (10/03/01)"
* "Resource Losses Reported to the WS Program, FY 2000 (Table 3 - 8/15/01)"
* "Number of Animals Taken and Methods Used by the WS Program, FY 2000 (Table 10 – Taken – 8/20/01)"

PCA also thanks A Coalition to End Aerial Gunning of Wildlife (AGRO; # and Animal Protection Institute (www.api4animals.org) for additional information used in this report.
Other Wildlife Services/Animal Damage Control References

We've lost our recruiting officer. Who in the group is on often and attentive?

"Yip, yip, yip, aaaa....ooooo," I heard from my warm bed. The sound pierced my sleep. I felt comforted, knowing that my coyotes were still in the area, still living and behaving as they have done for thousands of years, long before mankind (an oxymoron indeed) made his presence felt on the Southwestern plains.

Canis latrans, commonly known as the coyote, less kindly known as the thief, trickster, spoiler and outlaw, is smaller than the gray wolf (canis lupus) or the red wolf (canis rufus). They occupy the biological niche between foxes and wolves. With the push westward of man, the wolves' prey disappeared and so they were forced to predicate livestock. The settlers successfully petitioned and forced the elimination of the wolves, who also preyed on coyotes. But the coyote, "trickster" that he is, was able to elude man and has adapted even more readily to his landscape. Overgrazing may contribute to more abundant prey for the coyote and thus their success.

It is estimated that at least 400,000 coyotes are killed each year by federal, state and local governments and private individuals. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services Agency (your tax dollars at work) killed 77,997 coyotes in 1998. (Pamphlet entitled "Humane Ways to Live With Coyotes", published by the Animal Protection Institute.) Studies have proven that coyotes reach a natural balance within their territories. It becomes fruitless to try to "control" them; they will procreate to maintain their balance. This adaptability is the key to their survival and success. The coyote is an integral part of the land; he is part of the economic and cultural structure. The land demands his presence, much as the land demands the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf.

Depending upon their home range, coyotes feed on a wide variety of food items. Biology studies have shown that one main food source in the Southwest is fruit. Unlike the wolf, the coyote easily becomes a vegetarian when meat is unavailable. If there is a drought and no fruit can be found, they convert their diets to small rodents, which are more work to catch than fruit. I personally know they are fond of watermelon, peaches and apples.

Extremely few coyotes engage in cattle killing. A newborn calf, a likely target, outweighs a coyote by at least four times. Coyotes in our Chihuahuan high desert area seldom hunt in packs; observers have seen coyotes trot by likely cattle-prey without so much as a backwards glance. Perhaps because of his ease in obtaining alternative food sources, Wile E. has no need to attack cattle. They seem to rely primarily on vision while hunting and have also been observed to fish and climb trees in pursuit of game.

On an educational channel recently, a program was presented which showed the cooperative hunting efforts between a coyote and a badger. The badger can pursue small rodents, digging furiously with his sharp, front claws, while the quickness of the coyote brings a kill.

The coyotes in this area do not aggressively maintain territorial boundaries against one another. Depending upon the location, coyotes may range an area up to nine square miles. If there is plenty of food and lots of cover, a family of C. latrans may make it their home. It would appear that males' range may overlap and they may share territories; females' do not. Like domestic dogs, coyotes scent mark their territories with urine.

Where I live, in Southern New Mexico, there is most definitely a pack of coyotes. I have seen a lone male in the early morning dawn. I have seen a pair cross the rear of my property at mid-day on a heavily overcast and snowy afternoon. One thing I have observed is that they seem to follow the same pathways, the same ancient trails, that they have been following for thousands of years, ingrained in their spirits. I wonder what building a home does to those pathways?

Coyotes are almost always monogamous and pair bonds between male and female can last more than four years. The female's first season usually occurs at 10 months of age and they come into season once a year (unlike most domestic dogs who cycle every six months). Like canis familiaris, a "tie" is effected between the pair; average litter sizes equals six pups. The pups are born blind and helpless. They are weaned at between 5 to 7 weeks. Males contribute to both the nursing mother's food and the pups through regurgitation. Grey wolves and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) are known to do the same.

Most wild coyotes fear humans. They are extremely shy and will run away from humans. There is little possibility of their attacking. Aggressive behavior is not normal. Most often bites are caused by humans who are hand feeding coyotes. If humans insist on moving into coyote territory, those same humans should also learn to coexist with them. Coyotes are not considered a disease threat; rabies are rare and not commonly transmitted to humans.

Those in urban areas should take the following precautions to prevent coyotes from being attracted to your home:

1. Secure garbage can lids and dispose of meat, cheese and eggs in bags with a small amount of ammonia to deter coyotes from investigating.
2. If composting, use enclosed bins.
3. Pick up overripe fruit and bag for trash as above.
4. Outdoor sensor lights are excellent towards keeping coyotes away from your immediate living area.
5. One should also clear away heavy brush near your house in an effort to deter small rodents (coyote food) from nesting there.
6. Fence your property and keep animals inside at night.
7. Keep pet food inside as well.
8. Spay your female dog! Male coyotes are attracted to her scent for mating purposes. Spaying is better for HER health too!
9. If you have pastured animals (cows, sheep, horses), use guard animals like llamas, donkeys and special guard dogs. These have been proven to eliminate coyote predation.

Personally, I love hearing the wild sounds of the desert southwest. I'll take the "yip....ooooo" over police car sirens any day.

Not long ago, some knuckle-dragging neanderthal left a grisly scene at road’s edge for all the public to view.

Daylight was just filtering through the canopy of Oregon firs as I drove Highway 22 south of Detroit. The road threads its way through an old growth forest, and the trees crowd close to the shoulder.

With the forest so close at hand, a driver never knows what to expect around the next curve. Axle-breaking boulders tumble onto the pavement; deer and elk often customized the fenders of cars and trucks. I was carefully watching both shoulders of the road for the unexpected.

Just above Milepost 72, something gray at road’s edge caught my attention. Another split-second look confirmed it — a coyote! Not one but at least two coyotes were lying close by, but something seemed terribly wrong. Both animals were lying very still.

A mile later I found a wide spot and turned around to investigate. As my truck rolled to a stop on the cinder shoulder, I was horrified by what I found. There were indeed coyotes — four in all — lying dead by the road. All had been shot with a high-powered gun, and then the carcasses dumped alongside the highway.

I nudged several of the unfortunate beasts with the toe of my boot. Rigor mortis had not yet set in; the critters had been dumped during the night. While traffic whizzed by a few feet away, I snapped a few photos and hurried off to my meeting. My cell phone was out of service, but I hoped to find someone to whom I could report my discovery.

As luck would have it, I found no one with a radio or cell phone that day. While I worked, I could not forget the gruesome scene. There was no excuse for anyone to wantonly discard the four carcasses as though they were cigarette butts.

Twenty-five miles from the nearest town, in the middle of a federal forest, I could not understand why the animals were even killed. They were not a threat to sheep or chickens, nor were there any homes where marauding coyotes might enjoy tidbits of garbage or housecats. There were only miles of uninhabited forest where the coyotes could hunt mice and other rodents.

It was late afternoon when I returned to Milepost 72. I vowed that I would at least bury the hapless animals, but someone had already removed the carcasses, leaving no evidence of the massacre.

Photos taken at the scene by Mickey Bellman

What bloodthirsty ignoramus would kill four coyotes in the middle of a forest and then simply toss the carcasses along a public highway? Perhaps it is the same beer-guzzling redneck who curses anyone who wants to ban hunting and firearms. Perhaps it is the same “marksman” who assumes all road signs are merely targets posted for his personal enjoyment.

Unfortunately, to the detriment of responsible sportsmen, the disgusting actions of a few thoughtless jerks taint the reputation of all.

Colorado's Wildlife Commission has created a new opportunity for big game hunters to kill coyotes while they're hunting any big game species, without the small game license that's usually required. It's not surprising that the Colorado Mule Deer Association supports this move, because it believes that reducing coyote numbers will reduce predation on deer, the result of which will be more deer for hunters to slaughter. Once again, coyotes face additional exploitation by humans.

"Old man coyote" is an amazing being. Loved or hated and feared by many, coyotes have defied virtually all attempts to control their cunning ways. Boulder's own William Bright, in his superb collection of stories, "A Coyote Reader," notes: "Coyote is the trickster par excellence for the largest number of American Indian cultures."

Native peoples have portrayed coyotes as sly tricksters, thieves, gluttons, outlaws, and spoilers, because of their uncanny ability to survive and reproduce successfully in a wide variety of habitats (including Boulder and other cities) and under harsh conditions. They not only survive their encounters with other non-human predators (though they're losing out to wolves in Yellowstone National Park and are being forced to leave), but also with humans who attempt to control them using incredibly brutal methods, and who also hold well-organized community hunts in which the person who kills the most coyotes wins a trophy. Often these mass killings are considered to be wholesome family outings.

The federal Wildlife Services program (formerly called Animal Damage Control) slaughters tens of thousands of coyotes each year (about 86,000 in 1999, 10 percent more than in the previous year despite claims that the program is switching to non-lethal techniques) because coyotes supposedly are rampant predators on livestock. Livestock protection programs cost taxpayers about $10-11 million annually. In Colorado more than 90 percent of WS money ($1.1 million) is spent on lethal control of native wildlife.

Federal extermination efforts have been conducted since 1885, and during the past 50 years about 3.5 million coyotes have been killed. Killing methods trapping (28 percent), poisoning (21 percent), shooting from airplanes (33 percent), and snaring and other procedures (18 percent) are extremely inhumane and indiscriminate and other predators, domestic dogs, and endangered species also fall victim. In Colorado, during the 1999-2000 harvest season, about 26,000 coyotes were killed by private hunters.

Aerial gunners killed almost 31,000 coyotes in 1999 (along with 17 ravens, 180 red foxes and 390 bobcats). According to the Boulder-based conservation organization Sinapu, there have been 18 crashes involving planes used in aerial gunning since 1989, resulting in seven deaths and 21 injuries. The cost of aerial gunning to taxpayers ranges from $180 to $800 per animal. This comes to about $5.7 million spent on aerial gunning annually. Often tens of thousands of dollars are squandered to capture a single coyote who might be responsible for a few hundred dollars of livestock damage, or not blamable at all. A study done at Utah State University that involved gunning down coyotes from helicopters showed this horrific practice to be ineffective. In another study done at Utah State, coyotes, some of whom were seriously injured, were kept in leghold traps for long periods of time to determine the effects of tranquilizers to keep them calm when they were in pain.

Wanton killing doesn't work, because little attention is paid to the versatile behavior of these adaptable predators. And disease and unsanitary conditions frequently cause more livestock death than do coyotes or other predators. Only rarely is the "problem" coyote caught or killed, and when coyotes are killed, others take their place. There's even evidence that in areas where coyotes are killed, birth rates and litter size increase, the result of which is the maintenance or increase in coyote numbers.

I've studied coyotes for more than 25 years, and parallelling research performed by my colleagues, have discovered that talking about "the" coyote is misleading. The moment one begins making rampant generalizations, he or she is proven wrong. For example, in some areas coyotes live alone, in other locations they live with mates, while in others they live in groups that resemble wolf packs. In these packs there are "aunts" and "uncles" who help to raise youngsters. And coyotes are sometimes territorial and sometimes not. In a nutshell, coyotes are the quintessential opportunists, who defy profiling as individuals.

Coyotes are also a very important part of the ecological web in various communities because they help to regulate species at different trophic levels. Kevin Crooks and Michael Soule studied the complex interrelationships among coyotes, other predators such as domestic cats, opossum, and raccoons, and scrub birds including California quail, greater roadrunners, and cactus wrens living near San Diego. Crooks and Soule found that scrub bird diversity was higher in areas where coyotes were either present or more abundant. Domestic cats, opossum and raccoons avoided areas where coyotes were most active (coyotes often kill domestic cats where they co-habit). This research is an excellent example of the importance of long-term projects that investigate complex webs of nature that aren't obvious at first glance.

Unlike wild predators, domestic cats are recreational hunters; they continue to kill birds even when bird populations are low. Crooks and Soule found that 84 percent of outdoor cats brought back kills to their homes. Cat owners reported that each outdoor cat who hunted returned on average 24 rodents, 15 birds and 17 lizards to the residence each year, a large number of victims. The level of bird predation was unsustainable, and least 75 local extinctions have occurred in these areas over the past century.

An extraordinary amount of time, energy and money has gone into coyote control. But it hasn't worked; if it had, coyotes would be controlled and the controllers could move on to other more economically worthwhile activities. I expect that if any of us were as unsuccessful and wasteful in our jobs as WS animal controllers have been in theirs, we'd be looking for employment.

Let's appreciate coyotes for the amazing beings they are. They offer valuable lessons in survival. Though coyotes try our patience, they're a model animal for learning about adaptability and success by nonhuman individuals striving to make it in a human-dominated world. Coyotes, like Proteus the Greek, who could change his form at will and avoid capture, are truly "protean predators." They're a success story, perhaps hapless victims of their own success.

Coyotes: love them and leave them be.

Marc Bekoff teaches in EPO Biology at CU-Boulder. His is editor of Coyotes: Biology, behavior, and management and author of Minding animals: Awareness, emotions, and heart and The ten trusts: What we must do to care for the animals we love (with Jane Goodall).

Wildlife Services, a program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), uses millions of taxpayer dollars to kill nearly 100,000 wild carnivores annually. This publicly funded campaign continues to destroy wild predators, in vast numbers and inhumane ways, despite the development of non-lethal methods and evidence that lethal control is ineffective.

Formerly known as Animal Damage Control, Wildlife Services spent $31.9 million ($13 million of which was federal funding) in fiscal year 2000 to protect agriculture (crops and livestock) and natural resources from damage by wildlife.
In the Name of Livestock Protection

The program's "protection" of livestock consisted largely of killing native predators (e.g., coyotes and foxes). In 1999, Wildlife Services killed 96,592 coyotes, foxes, badgers, and other predators—about 85,000 of whom were coyotes. That's a 10% increase over the number of coyotes that Wildlife Services killed the previous year. Generally, the number of coyotes killed annually has remained the same over the past ten years.
The methods used to kill these animals include shooting from helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, trapping, poisoning, and denning (killing pups in their dens with a fumigant). Used extensively at the behest of ranchers in some western states, aerial gunning accounts for the greatest percentage of predator "take" by Wildlife Services (33% of deaths in 1999). This method is often used as a "preventative" to reduce local coyote populations before any livestock losses occur; as a result, however, coyotes who would never attack sheep are killed along with those who might actually cause problems.

Trapping is used almost as much (28%), generally in the form of leghold traps and neck snares—both of which can cause significant suffering to trapped animals. In addition, both types of traps routinely injure or kill "non-target" animals such as deer, birds, and pets.

Whatever method used, lethal control is not effective over the long term in reducing predator-caused livestock losses. After intensive lethal control, surviving coyotes experience reduced competition for food. This means the coyote population will reproduce and rebound quickly. What's more, not all coyotes attack livestock, even when no other prey is available. Killing a coyote who has no interest in attacking livestock creates a vacant territory that will quickly be filled by a nearby coyote or dispersing younger animals. This new coyote may cause problems that would have been averted by allowing the original resident to remain and defend its territory.

A careful assessment of livestock husbandry practices, as well as the use of a variety of non-lethal methods, can go a long way toward reducing or eliminating predator-caused livestock losses over the long term. Husbandry practices include bringing sheep into a barn during lambing (when they are especially vulnerable); corralling livestock at night; and removing livestock carcasses before they attract coyotes, bears, or other predators. Non-lethal means of reducing livestock depredations include the use of livestock-guarding animals, electric fencing, and aversive conditioning of attacking predators. Overall, predators account for a small percentage of livestock losses: a combined total of 9.1%. (Sheep and lambs are far more vulnerable than cattle to predation, but the number lost to predators is far smaller than the number lost to other causes.) The vast majority of livestock loss is due to disease, severe weather, and difficulty during calving or lambing. However, coyotes and other predators provide easy scapegoats for the many difficulties faced by ranchers, and an easy target for Wildlife Services.

In the Name of Wild Birds

Many of the same predator species are killed, using the same methods, in the name of protecting natural resources. Coyotes and foxes are once again Wildlife Services’ primary targets when populations of ground-nesting birds (such as plovers, grouse, and waterfowl) begin to decline. The birds species of concern are those valued either because they are endangered or threatened or because they are considered a “game” species and therefore important to hunters.

In most cases, bird population declines are caused by loss and/or fragmentation of habitat. Once imperiled as a result of habitat loss, these populations may be impacted more directly by predation. Predators provide an easy scapegoat—and lethal predator control appears to provide a simple solution—when ground-nesting birds or other prey species are in trouble. However, reductions in predator populations only occasionally result in bird population increases; when increases do occur under these circumstances, they are short-lived and require continued and widespread lethal predator control.

On the other hand, habitat improvements, coupled with fencing that excludes predators, provide an alternative solution that is more likely to produce positive results in the long term— not to mention a more peaceful coexistence with wildlife.

As development has destroyed their habitats, coyotes are thriving in subdivisions, office parks, airports and shopping mall grounds, researchers have found.

Wildlife biologist Paul Morey roams through late nights and early mornings in a battered pickup with an antenna on the roof that he uses to track coyotes wearing radio collars.

Some people have called police, fearing he is a government spy. Others mock-howl at him when he plays recorded coyote distress calls in suburban prairies.

Morey isn't bothered. He knows it's essential work in the nation's most exhaustive study of coyotes living on the fringes of big cities, a study being undertaken in the Chicago area.

"I get a lot of strange looks when I'm collecting scats," said the soft-spoken Morey, who has analyzed 600 coyote droppings in about 18 months to help explain the animals' eating habits. "One lady said to me, `So, my child can get paid for doing that?' I just shook my head and said, `Yeah.'"

Like raccoons and foxes, deer and peregrine falcons, coyotes have carved out a healthy existence in metropolitan areas across North and Central America. In the Chicago region, the number of coyotes caught as nuisance animals totaled 320 in 1999, up from 17 in 1990.

Sprawling development has destroyed coyotes' natural habitats but created congenial, if artificial, alternatives--subdivisions and office parks, airports and shopping mall grounds. The rise in their population is almost imperceptible to humans who literally live among the coyotes.

The unsettling aspect of that arrangement is that although coyotes eat plants and scavenge other meals, they also hunt. They are known to attack pets and--rarely--humans.

Morey and Stan Gehrt, the wildlife biologist coordinating the three-year study of metropolitan coyotes, plan to ease those fears by getting a clear picture of the lifestyles of the oft-maligned animals famous for their adaptability and resilience.

Gehrt, who works at the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation in East Dundee, said the study, which is being funded by the Cook County Department of Animal and Rabies Control, is expected to be completed late next year.

Two years into it, researchers have trapped, ear-tagged and collared almost 60 coyotes, a surprisingly large number that indicates the population is higher than originally thought. Morey, Gehrt and three other researchers are examining the coyotes' reproduction, survival rates, deaths, social systems and diseases.

They also will try to compile an accurate census of coyotes in the area. "But it's going to be the part of the project that I'll be least comfortable with," Gehrt said.

That's because, much to Gehrt's surprise and in contrast to their rural counterparts, preliminary research shows that metropolitan coyotes roam widely, shifting alliances and territories, making them about as easy to trace as the wind. Radio tracking suggests the animals can wander 25 miles in 24 hours.

One coyote, originally caught near Medieval Times theme restaurant in Schaumburg, was last tracked to Illinois State Beach Park near Zion. One caught in Poplar Creek Forest Preserve near Hoffman Estates was tracked to Northwestern University in Evanston and later found dead from a gunshot in a parking lot near O'Hare.

Another coyote picked up in Poplar Creek roamed about 100 miles of trails to a rural area northwest of Rockford, where a hunter shot the animal. Last week, a coyote turned up dead in a Winnetka back yard after traveling from far west suburban Wayne.

Being shot is the third leading cause of metropolitan coyotes' demise, Gehrt said. The No. 1 cause is being hit by cars and trucks, followed by overall deteriorated health caused by disease, physical injury or starvation. Yet about 65 percent of the animals survive their first year, much better than rural coyotes' survival rate, Gehrt said.

The beginnings of the coyotes' urbanization date to the late 1800s, when the federal government began vigorous extermination of them in states west of the Mississippi River, largely to curtail their threat to livestock. Today, they are found from Alaska to Costa Rica, in all habitats from remote rural locales to dense urban centers like Los Angeles and New York.

When coyotes arrived in the farm fields of Illinois, they became a target of farmers and hunters. Forest preserves in the Chicago area began to expand in the 1950s, and the animals found sanctuary there. As the forest preserve populations of coyotes grew, some moved out of the woods and into neighborhoods, Gehrt said.

"They're being forced back into the cities because there's no place for them to go," said Marc Bekoff, an author and environmental biology professor at the University of Colorado who has been studying coyotes for nearly 30 years. "Their populations get compressed and as they get compressed, they go where they can find space. Coyotes are like water. They will fill any niche and likely succeed."

They have thrived in urban areas because they have a smorgasbord of rodents, deer, rabbits, geese, even pheasant to dine on and no natural predators such as wolves and mountain lions.

Coyotes are opportunistic predators. A handful of the scat samples Morey has analyzed contain traces of cat. Last month , Bartlett police received a complaint that a coyote ate a Yorkshire terrier.

In southern California, generations of coyotes have been raised around humans and become more confident. Last year, the California Department of Fish and Game recorded 17 coyote attacks on humans in the southern region of the state. Eight resulted in injuries that required hospitalization.

But the animals in Illinois, according to Gehrt and Morey, seem to avoid humans.

"They have plenty of opportunities to attack, but they show no interest," Gehrt said one recent night tracking coyotes in Streamwood, where he once found a coyote den on a bushy, cul-de-sac island. "This neighborhood has a pack of coyotes living right next to it and the people have no idea."

The animals being tracked in Gehrt's study roam in packs and alone, he said. They live at O'Hare International Airport and subdivisions in Barrington, Inverness, West Chicago, Carol Stream, Winfield and Geneva. One resides in a patch of marshy brush surrounded by a church, park and subdivision in Streamwood.

They routinely roam the parking lot of Woodfield Mall and rest behind the Schaumburg post office. They cross I-290 and busy Roselle Road in afternoon traffic. They chase planes at Schaumburg Airport and roam the golf course next to DuPage Airport, Gehrt said.

Yet not one has attacked a human.

Gehrt also noted that scat samples show that coyotes in the Chicago area are finding enough deer and geese and other animals to eat without, for the most part, having to forage through restaurant trash bins or residential garbage cans.

All those observations suggest to Gehrt that coyotes are coexisting peacefully with humans.

Dogs killed more than 300 people in the U.S. between 1990 and 2000, he noted.

By comparison, Gehrt has found only one report of a coyote attacking a human east of the Mississippi River, and that was in the Boston area.

"They can't escape people," Gehrt said of coyotes, "so they have to live with them. And, some of the coyotes are very, very good at that."

Any artist 'yotes out there willing to donate any art? Doesn't have to be fresh, could be old

CeAnn Lambert has a coyote on her couch.

"Get down," she says, trying to muffle the phone. "Go on Amber, get down."

Her voice cracks as she begins to laugh.

"I wouldn't recommend this for everyone," she says.

Amber, who came to Lambert in 2001, is one of 19 coyotes living at the Indiana Coyote Rescue Center in Bringhurst, Ind., between Lafayette and Kokomo.

"I'm fascinated by them," Lambert says. In the 20 years she's spent studying coyotes, Lambert has seen couples form and territory disputes play out, "even with the coyotes I've had for a long time."

While coyotes don't make good house pets, Lambert says, they're also not the vicious predators lurking in the bushes. Coyotes are clever survivalists that adapt to their surroundings -- even if that means sharing their habitat with humans.
A cry in the dark

"They get a bad rap," says Maria Peacock, interpretive services manager for Potato Creek State Park, North Liberty. "They're pretty secretive and pretty shy. From what I've experienced, their first instinct is to run away from humans."

Footprints in a garden. A blur of fur beyond a headlight's reach. It's these glimpses of coyotes that so many people find unnerving.

"People always ask about coyotes," Peacock says. "They've heard a horror story, or they might have had a glimpse of what they thought was a coyote."

With long, slender snouts and pointed ears, coyotes are sometimes mistaken as small German shepherds. It's their bushy tail and proportionately long legs that distinguish them from their domesticated cousins.

"People think coyotes are bigger than they really are," says Tim Cordell, a naturalist at Potato Creek State Park.

Coyotes, in fact, are smaller than wolves and slightly bigger than foxes, weighing between 20 and 50 pounds.

Coyotes are most active from dusk to dawn and are typically recognized by their moonlight serenades, often described as yodeling, howling and yipping -- which is why the coyote's scientific name, Canis latrans, simply means "barking dog."

"We don't see them very often, but you can hear them quite frequently (in the park)," Cordell says.

Lisa Calvert, an officer with the Humane Society of St. Joseph County, has responded to two night calls for coyotes that were struck by cars.

"We've had a couple near forest areas in (South Bend) city limits," Calvert says.
Family life

Unlike wolves that live and hunt in tight family packs, coyotes are more solitary animals. They howl to stay connected to family members, who, like people, get together for special occasions -- including the birth of a litter.

Coyotes mate once a year and typically pair up for life. They dig dens on brushy slopes, under rock ledges and in steep banks. If there is any threat to the litter, real or imagined, a new den is dug and the family moves.

Both coyote parents take responsibility in the care and feeding of young coyotes. Initially, it's the father job to feed mom so she can save her energy to produce milk for the babies. His hunting trips provide small game for his stay-at-home mate. Later, both parents will bring food to the growing family. When the litter is old enough, other adults get involved in teaching the youngsters how to hunt.
Of mice and men

Coyotes usually eat small mammals such as mice, moles, rabbits and squirrels. However, they're opportunistic animals and will eat what they can when trying to survive. In urban areas, coyotes take advantage of pet food left outside, fruit fallen from trees and garbage. When coyotes are attracted by such things, small pets may be in jeopardy.

It's only when food is scarce, experts say, that coyotes prey on domestic animals.

"They're not trying to be mean or nasty," Cordell says. "They're just trying to eat."

Because they sometimes prey upon small livestock as well, coyotes are considered to be a "nuisance animal" in Indiana. The designation gives farmers without a permit the right to kill coyotes on their land at any time of year.

While coyotes are not considered a nuisance animal in Michigan, both states have coyote hunting and trapping seasons to curb populations. Unlike deer or waterfowl, there's no limit to the number of coyotes that can be killed.

Despite being continuously trapped, poisoned and hunted, coyotes remain the only North American predator to increase in numbers and range over the past century.
Checks and balances

Some wildlife naturalists contend that population control practices have made it worse on farmers.

"If you don't have these animals in the food chain, you have a lot more mice and rabbits that go after vegetation and grains," Cordell says. "Coyotes are part of nature's checks and balances."

This is a system that's evident with coyote litters. When prey is scarce, they tend to be smaller, but with little competition for food, females can have up to 12 pups instead of a typical litter of four to six.

"If we would leave coyotes alone, they would police themselves," Lambert says. "People think we are seeing more coyotes. We are seeing more coyotes because there are more spaces without trees and brush for them to hide."
By the numbers

While some estimate the two state's coyote populations to be in the tens of thousands, the Department of Natural Resources does not have an accurate count.

"We have no idea," says Bruce Plowman, furbearer biologist with the Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. "You're not going to find hard-core numbers."

Since coyotes traverse such large territories, it's difficult for researchers to get reliable statistics. Still, trends suggest that the coyote population exploded in the 1970s and has since leveled off. The perception, however, remains that the region is seeing another population boom.

"This is the time of year when I get calls from people saying 'We have too many coyotes in Indiana,' " Lambert says. "A lot of young coyotes are passing through."

Beginning in October, coyote pups leave their mothers to find territories of their own, traveling hundreds of miles to do so. Sometimes that means crossing through back yards or across roadways.

"We're getting coyote phone calls quite often -- at least once a week," says Val Grimes of Berrien County Animal Control. "As new houses are built, we're encroaching on their territory, and so they are encroaching into ours." Coyote populations have fluctuated as the human population has grown. Now that they've had a few centuries to get used to people, Miller says, coyotes are adapting to new environments even in old habitats.

"They're finding a way to readapt to the areas that they've formerly inhabited," Miller says. "Including Indiana and Michigan."

Coyotes inhabited natural plains in Indiana and Michigan before the region was settled. Now, centuries later, they live where they can -- often that's in the miniature prairie habitats of subdivisions, golf courses and office parks. Like starlings and squirrels, coyotes thrive in this sort of artificial landscape.

It's here where coyotes and people often collide.
True colors

"The most common misconception people have is that coyotes are out there just waiting to attack their child," Lambert says. "Coyotes really are afraid of you. It isn't in the coyote's advantage to be in contact with humans."

Something she sees daily.

Some of the coyotes at the ICRC were injured in the wild and privately rehabilitated; others were ill-advised pets dropped off at shelters. All of them are too used to humans to make it in the wild and too wild to live with humans.

"The humane shelters found me, and I just started taking them in," Lambert says.

In 1987, while volunteering at Wolf Park in Battle Ground, Ind., Lambert helped hand-raise a litter of coyote puppies. After that, she was hooked.

"I got pretty attached," she says. "So they told me that if I built a proper pen and got the proper permits that I could take two of them with me."

Since then she's sheltered more than 26 coyotes, relying on donations to keep the 1 1/2-acre facility afloat.

She gives them names such as Amber and Blaize, Macho and Tudi. They live in pens and feed on a variety of roadkill and freezer meat. In this setting, it's easy to forget they once were wild animals.

While these coyotes have found a home with Lambert, many others continue a tenuous relationship with people. It's a relationship naturalists believe would be better served if humans adapted to coyotes as well as they've seemed to adapt to us.

"They're here," Miller says, "and we need to learn to live with them."

Augusta, Maine- In a move hailed by wildlife advocates as a victory for coyotes in Maine, on Thursday April 2nd the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife amended a hotly contested bill – LD 303 – and removed the portion of the bill that would have extended coyote night hunting in the state by three months. The move to amend the bill was in response to objections expressed by Project Coyote and other organizations that decried the proposed coyote night hunting expansion as ethically unjustifiable and ecologically unsound.

Geri Vistein, Project Coyote Conservation Biologist, who testified before the committee, pointed out that hunters can already night hunt coyotes for five months of the year and that expanding the season would do little to protect deer herds, as LD 303 proponents purported. Vistein explained that expanding the coyote night hunting season into the summer would likely increase wildlife poaching, pup orphaning, and disturbance of all wildlife as well as private landowners and summer vacationers. Moreover, she emphasized that because coyote populations are able to rebound in a short period of time after lethal reduction efforts, random killing of coyotes would do nothing to reduce their populations, rebutting arguments made by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and other bill proponents.

“Aside from our ethical concerns with expanding coyote night hunting, this bill would do nothing to protect Maine’s deer herds as the bill’s proponents contended,” said Vistein. “A copious and growing body of literature shows that coyote population reduction efforts through lethal control are futile given the species’ resiliency and ability to biologically rebound.” When Vistein emphasized this point in her initial testimony, certain committee members expressed interest in seeing studies to corroborate this claim. Vistein provided those documents to the committee prior to Thursdays’ hearing which helped to convince certain members of the committee that expanding the night hunting season for coyotes was an ecologically unsound approach to protect Maine’s deer herds.


“Coyotes have been vilified in Maine as in other parts of the country,” said Vistein, who pointed out to committee members that coyotes can be hunted year round in the state in unlimited numbers. “Project Coyote’s voice in Maine is helping to turn the tide and people are beginning to see that the coyote has a rightful place in our state and is a species that not only provides many ecological benefits, but as a top carnivore actually helps to keep our deer herds genetically strong.”

Project Coyote seeks to create fundamental and systemic change in how coyotes and other native carnivores are viewed and treated in North America and is a fiscally sponsored project of Earth Island Institute a, 501©3 non-profit organization. Visit us online at https://www.ProjectCoyote.org

Lex18 News Article
April 10, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
April 14, 2009 12:32 PM EDT

Kentucky and West Virginia conservation officers arrested six people, served summonses on two others and seized eight illegally possessed coyotes Friday after an investigation into a coyote and fox trafficking ring that has been underway for almost two years.
In all, the suspects face at least 831 counts of illegally buying, selling or possessing wild-caught foxes and coyotes, and in one case, cruelty to animals.

The 20-month undercover investigation, code named "Gyp-Sum", looking into the illegal practice of buying, selling and holding wild-caught foxes and coyotes for the purpose of sale, came to a head as officers served warrants or summonses in five Kentucky counties and one out of state. Officers in Alabama, Virginia, Indiana, South Carolina and Florida contributed to the investigation.
Forest D. "Tony" Hall, 69, of Sitka in Johnson County, Elbridge Cook, 62, and Michael Ellis, 62, both of Corinth in Grant County, James Auxier, 41, of East Point in Johnson County, and Charles Creech, 73, of Beattyville in Lee County were arrested in Kentucky.
Officers serving a summons to George Hill, 57, of Waco in Madison County, arrested him instead when they found him to be illegally in possession of eight coyotes. Thomas Hymer, 78, of Irvine in Estill County, and Clustena Hall, 70, of Sitka, were served summonses to appear in Madison District Court and Johnson District Court, respectively. The out of state arrest warrant remained unserved and officers expect to complete that arrest this weekend.

Operation Gyp-Sum was triggered in July 2007 when Virginia officers notified Kentucky officers that Howard Blevins of Asheville, NC, a principal subject in a multi-state investigation of persons trafficking in wild foxes and coyotes was making frequent and routine stops at certain locations in Kentucky. Officers involved in that multi-state investigation provided Kentucky officers with GPS map coordinates of Blevins' visits and phone numbers of persons he was contacting.
Kentucky officers were assisting in several other states' investigations at that time, and in November 2007, Alabama Wildlife and Fisheries officers closed their own fox and coyote trafficking investigation with 18 arrests in three states, including Blevins for his involvement.

For the past 20 months, Kentucky undercover officers say they witnessed the illegal buying, selling and possession of live foxes and coyotes. They also witnessed Creech cutting the tails off live coyotes destined for use in chase pens.
"Officers in other states have heard of that practice, but this is the first time someone has actually demonstrated it to an officer," said a Kentucky undercover officer who witnessed the mutilation. "The tail is the first thing the hounds grab, so cutting it off makes it harder for the dogs to catch the coyote and extends the chase."
Creech is charged with seven counts of cruelty to animals, nine counts of illegally possessing wildlife without a permit, and seven counts of illegally buying wildlife. He was arrested and faces fines up to $15,000 and up to seven years in jail.

The trade in foxes and coyotes stems from the practice of turning packs of fox hounds loose inside fenced enclosures ranging in size up to several hundred acres to chase foxes or coyotes. The chases may begin about sundown and may continue through noon or so the next day. Officers say some chase pen operators need a continuous supply of foxes and coyotes and will pay as much as $100 or more for each animal.

That sets off alarms for wildlife biologists concerned about creating a commercial black market in Kentucky for the sale of coyotes and foxes to running pens.
"A market for coyotes in Kentucky would encourage people from out of state to bring coyotes here to sell," said state furbearer biologist Laura Patton. "Complaints about problem coyotes in urban areas and by livestock farmers are increasing. We need to reduce the potential for coyotes coming into Kentucky.
"Bringing coyotes or foxes into Kentucky puts our native wildlife populations at risk of contracting diseases that currently exist only in other states," said Patton. "These diseases include canine rabies and echinococcus multilocularis, a species of tapeworm that can infect humans and pets, spread to the liver, lungs and brain, remain undetected for years, and then cause death."

The commercial trafficking of live-trapped coyotes inside Kentucky also runs the risk of spreading canine distemper, parvovirus, rabies, brucellosis, tapeworm, canine heartworm, canine hepatitis or mange by taking it from one area and spreading it to other wildlife, domestic pets and livestock.
"Even the hounds that come into contact with these foxes and coyotes during the chase are at risk to contract and become carriers of these diseases," said wildlife biologist and state furbearer program coordinator Steven Dobey. "They can carry it back with them and possibly infect other pets and humans they contact, as was the case when the coyote strain of rabies was discovered in Alabama and Florida and linked to the illegal importation of coyotes from Texas for use in chase pens." Humans were exposed and dogs had to be destroyed.
"Disease transmission aside," said Patton, "many of these animals were trapped as nuisance animals. But a nuisance coyote trapped in one county and moved to another location can become someone else's nuisance when it escapes.
"It is illegal to buy or sell wild-caught animals in Kentucky," Patton said.

"The lessons taught by history are clear," said Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Director of Law Enforcement Col. Bob Milligan, "about how wildlife populations can be devastated when people develop an illegal commercial market for them. This investigation plainly shows how quickly a black market can develop."

Tony Hall faces up to $135,000 in fines. He was arrested and charged with 67 counts of illegally buying wildlife, 20 of illegally selling wildlife, and 96 of possessing wildlife without a permit.
Cook, charged with 14 counts of illegally assisting in the sale of wildlife, 111 counts of illegally selling wildlife and 164 counts of illegally possessing wildlife for the purpose of sale, was arrested and faces a maximum of $282,000 in fines.
Ellis is charged with 73 counts of illegally assisting in the sale of wildlife, 18 counts of illegally selling wildlife and 39 counts of illegally possessing wildlife for the purpose of sale. He was arrested and faces potential fines totaling $93,500.
Auxier was arrested and charged with 36 counts of illegally assisting in the buying and selling of wildlife. He faces up to $18,000 in fines.
Hill is charged with four counts of illegally buying wildlife and 11 counts of illegal possession. He was arrested and issued a summons and faces up to $7,500 in fines.
Hymer is charged with four counts of illegally assisting in buying wildlife. He was issued a summons and faces up to $2,000 in fines.
Clustena Hall is charged with five counts of illegally possessing wildlife and faces up to $2,500 in fines.
Huffman is charged with 15 counts of illegally possessing wildlife and 15 counts of illegally buying wildlife. He was arrested and faces up to $22,500 in fines.

*taps papers on desk* Tonight at 8:58pm PST, the ever kind  Dragoneer has restored our group to it's former glory and...*is handed something* This just in....we have Frankenstein quoted saying "Rrrrr. RRRRR!" What will be all, thank you.

Anyone finds this bastard, you know what to do

On January 27, 2005, I was awakened by my dogs barking and the sound of a pick up truck idling on the SW corner of my property. As I walked through the dark house to see what was going on, I saw a flashlight-light reflecting off of my barn door.

Running out the back door to see what was going on, I heard the truck drive away. I made the rounds of my coyote pens to check on them. Everything looked OK. Just as I walked back in the house, I heard a coyote cry in pain.

I went back outside with a better flashlight and found Amber with blood running down the side of her face and her eye all bloody. She was taken to Dr. Wolf, her vet. and her eye had to be removed.

What kind of person walks up to an animal in a secure enclosure, an animal who loved greeting people when they came to see her? He then points a gun to her eye and pulls the trigger. Since I did not hear a gunshot, the Sheriff's Dept. has determined that a silencer was use.

Amber before she was shot I would like to thank everybody who sent in a donation to help pay her vet. bill, for plywood to be bought, for a reward to be offered, for some surveillance to be purchased for her pen (soon) and for me to buy her the best, freshest food to help her heal. Her medications are also paid for.

We have now set up a PayPal account so tax deductable donations can be sent to: ceannicrc[at]yahoo.com

Increase In Reward to $1000

A concerned citizen from Russiaville has matched the original $500 reward offered by Indiana Coyote Rescue Center.

For information leading to the arrest of the irresponsible gun owner who trespassed on my property, walked up to one of my coyote pens, looked one of my tame coyotes, who loves people , right in the eye and then shot her eye out.

Who and what will he target next? Your dog, your cat, your child, you?

Contact the Carroll County Sheriffs Department. 765-564-2413 Any information received will be kept confidential.