Predation by coyotes (Canis latrans) on livestock continues to plague producers in the United States. Agricultural interests are concerned about coyote predation because sheep inventories in the U.S.have declined >85% in the past 60 years, with a 25% decline between 1991 and 1996. This decline in sheep numbers has been attributed to low economic returns among producers, with coyote predation cited as a major causative factor. Generalizations about the magnitude and nature of depredations can be misleading because of the varied nature of sheep operations, including size of operations, differences in management, and environmental circumstances surrounding individual operations. Coyote depredation rates appear to be influenced by sheep management practices, coyote biology and behavior, environmental factors, and depredation management programs. Most nonlethal depredation control techniques fall within the operational purview of the producers. The major controversy regarding depredation management focuses on programs that remove coyotes to prevent or curtail predation on domestic stock, especially on public lands. Differences in the magnitude, nature, and history of problems caused by coyotes, as well as the circumstances in which they occur, dictates a need for a variety of techniques and programs to resolve problems. The resolution of coyote depredation upon livestock remains controversial for producers, resource managers, and the general public. Because various segments of society attach different values to coyotes, resolution of depredations should use management programs that integrate the social, legal, economic, and biological aspects of the animals and the problem. Preferred solutions should involve procedures that solve problems as effectively, efficiently, and economically as possible in the least intrusive and most benign ways. Predation management requires a partnership among producers and wildlife managers to tailor programs to specific damage situations so the most appropriate techniques can be selected. This paper attempts to clarify the issues surrounding depredation management, synthesize past and current research, and provide information to resource managers associated with coyote depredation management. This synthesis integrates current understandings of coyote biology and behavior, the nature of depredations upon sheep producing enterprises, and the merits of various depredation control strategies and techniques.

Abstract:The primary objective of this study was to develop a better understanding of coyote (Canis latrans) wariness particularly as it related to social status. We determined that territory status (controlling alpha, resident beta, or nonterritorial transient) affected vulnerability to photo-capture by infrared-triggered camera systems. All coyotes were wary of cameras, leading to relatively low numbers of photo-captures, most of which occurred at night. Alphas were significantly underrepresented in photographs and were never photo-captured inside their awn territories. Betas were photographed inside and outside their territories, whereas transients were most often photographed on edges of territories. Both alphas and betas were photographed more often on territorial edges when outside their territories. We next addressed the question of how alphas were better able to avoid photo-capture. Alphas tracked human activity within their territories and presumably learned the locations of cameras as they were being set up. They did this either by approaching our location directly or by moving to a vantage point from where they could observe us. Betas and transients either withdrew or did not respond to human activity. Trials in which a dog was present were more likely to elicit an approach response from alphas. Avoidance of camera stations and the tracking of human activity implied wariness toward objects or locations resulting from their learned association with human presence rather than neophobia toward the objects themselves.Resume : L'objectif premier de notre itude est d'obtenir une meilleure comprihension de la mefiance chez les coyotes (Canis latrans), particulierement en fonction de leur statut social. Le statut territorial (alpha contrirlant, bPta risidant, ou errant non territorial) affecte la vuln6rabilitC h la prise en photo par un systkme de camhas dtclenchees par infrarouge. Tous les coyotes sont mtfiants vis a vis des cameras; il y a donc peu de prises de photos, la plupart pendant la nuit. Les coyotes alpha sont significativement sous representts sur les photos et ne sont jamais photographits B I'inttrieur de leur territoire. Les coyotes b&ta sont photographiis B l'interieur et B I'extbieur de leur territoire et les errants son1 surtout photographiis en bordure des territoires. Lorsqu'ils sont photographiis hors de leur territoire, les coyotes alpha et beta le sont surtout pres des bordures. Nous awns ensuite essay6 de determiner comment les coyotes alpha rtussissent mieux que les autres B eviter la camtra. Les coyotes alpha suivent I'activite humaine a I'intirieur de leur territoire et apprennent sans doute ]'emplacement des cambas lors de I'installation. Ils s'approchent alors directement de notre position ou alors ils se postent B des sites avantageux pour nous observer En prisence d'activitt humaine, les coyotes b&ta et errants re retirent ou alors ne rkagissent pas. Les essais en presence d'un chien sont plus susceptibles de provoquer une reaction d'approche chez les coyotes alpha. L'Cvitement d...

: Remote cameras are an increasingly important tool in management and wildlife studies. However, we often do not know if they provide an unbiased sample of populations. Using a marked, radiocollared population of coyotes (Canis latrans) of known social status, we evaluated the influence of temporal (daily and seasonal) and spatial (distance between units, habitat, and proximity to human structures) factors on vulnerability to photo‐captures. During 8 unbaited camera sessions of 6 weeks each, we obtained 158 coyote photographs at a photo‐capture success rate of 1.6%. We were able to identify not only marked individuals, but also a number of uncollared adults through variation in their pelage. Photo‐capture of adults peaked 2 weeks after we established camera stations. Annual success for photographing adult coyotes was greatest during March and April, which corresponded with the dispersal season. The majority of photo‐captures occurred at night, and adult photo‐captures peaked around midnight, with smaller peaks at dawn and dusk. Rather than reflecting a circadian activity pattern, nighttime captures seemed to reflect when adult coyotes were most vulnerable to photo‐capture. Characteristics of camera locations, such as amount of human activity, being on roads versus trails, and habitat type, also influenced the number of photo‐captures. We conclude that remote cameras do not always provide an unbiased sample of populations and that animal behavior is important to consider when using these systems. Researchers using camera techniques need to carefully consider when, where, and how cameras are placed to reduce this bias.

Coyote (Car1i.s1ntran.s)depredation is a chronic problem for sheep producers in the western United States. Due to increasingly localized control efforts, behaxior of individual coyotes in sheep-ranching entironments is becoming a more important consideration. We radiotracked 14 coyotes on a year-round sheep-ranching facility in north-coastal California during September 1993-December 1995. Breeding coyote pairs nsed mutually exclusive territories (maximum overlap between 90% adaptive kernel home ranges = 4%).Nonbreeding coyotes xvere transient or varied in their degree of fidelity to putative natal territories but generally avoided cores of nullnatal territories. Breeding coyotes whose territories contained sheep were the principal predators of sheep. In the 1994 lambing period (1Jan-31 May), radiotelemetry indicated that 1 breeding inale was responsible for 71% of 6Ei kills. In the 1995 lanrbing period, 4 breeding pairs were strongly implicated in 92% of 48 kills and were suspected of 85% of 26 additional kills; lionbreeders were not associated with sheep depredation. Depredation was reduced only when territorial breeders known to hl1 sheep were removed. These results suggest the need for management to target breeding adults in the immediate vicinity of depredation. Efforts to remove individuals > I territory-xcidth away from problem sites are ~~nlikely to reduce depredation and may eeaacerbate the problem by creating vacancies for ne\r breeders that might kill sheep.

Evidence suggests that predation on domestic sheep hy coyotes (Cnnis latrans) is caused printarily by breeding pairs with territories overlapping sheep. Accordingly, we investigated t~llnerahility of coyotes to removal methods relative to factors associated with reproduction and territoriality LVe collected live and lethal coyote capture data during April 1993-Febn~ar?, 1998 on a north-coastal California sheep ranch. Routine coyote removal was conducted in response to sheep depredation before and during (part of! the stucly. Younger (nonbreed~ig) coyotes generally were more c~ilnerable to captnre than older (potentially breeding) individnals. although age bias varied among removal methods. Recaptures of radiocollared coyotes in foothold traps and snares indicated a bias toward progressively younger indi\iduals (juv > yearling > ad; P = 0.002). Proportionally more jnvenile and yearling coyotes were remotred by M-44s (sotliunr cyanide ejectors) than by traps and snares (P = 0.016). \lie found no difference between traps and snares in the ages of coyotes taken (P = 0.50). \'~ilnerability of yorlnger coyotes was likely elevated by lack of experience arrd rtlore tinie spent in nnfarrriliar areas where they were least able to avoid capture devices. Coyotes were caught more often than expected oritside of core areas of their territories with both traps (P =: 0.001) and snares (P= 0.02). Older coyotes were most vulnerable in spring and summer when rearing pups, after most depredation occurred. Kadiocollared breeders (P = 0.012) and uncollared coyotes of breeding age (P = 0.052) werr captured less often during the non-pup-rearing periocl tlran the pup-rearing period. These results suggest conventior~al control in ~~o r t h e r n California is poorly suited to the segment of the coyote poptilation killing the most sheep. particnlarly dnring the time of year when most sheep depredation occurs. Efficacy of control methocis might be improved by consen~ative use of conventional devices to minimize learned avoid;ince by coyotes, and bv grrater reliance on methods such as livestock protection collars that are specific to depredating ir~di\id~~als throughout the year,

Resolving conflicts between predators and livestock producers depends on obtaining reliable information about the predators that kill livestock. We used salivary DNA obtained from attack wounds on domestic sheep carcasses to identify the species of predator responsible for the kill, as well as the sex and individual identity of coyotes (Canis latrans) that killed sheep. Coyotes killed 36 of 37 depredated sheep. Breeding pairs whose territories overlapped sheep grazing areas were the primary predators on domestic sheep, and only breeding pairs killed multiple sheep. Breeding males, acting alone or with their mate, were involved in 21 of 25 kills. Breeding females participated in 13 kills, but only 1 breeding female killed sheep on her own. Transient females did not kill sheep, and both kills by transient males occurred in territories with a breeding vacancy. Our results suggest that predator control should be targeted at breeding male coyotes. Salivary DNA is a potentially powerful means of both investigating predation patterns and evaluating the effectiveness of control at targeting individuals that kill livestock.

No abstract

Golden jackals are locally common in Bangladesh despite intensive cultivation and high human densities. We studied the relative importance of seasonal flooding, rodent prey-base, and daytime cover on the occurrence of golden jackals in the two major agro-ecosystems in Bangladesh, one with annual monsoon flooding and the other without. Jackals were less common throughout the year where floodwaters occurred that would have excluded them for 1-3 months during their pup-rearing season. Diets of jackals were similar in the two agro-ecosystems. Rodents were the most common food type in scats throughout the year. The occurrence of burrowing rats in scats peaked seasonally when these rats were most concentrated in ripening cereals, suggesting that jackals are beneficial for rat control. Radiotelemetry of seven jackals in the non-flooded agro-ecosystem over an 11-month period indicated that sugarcane was the preferred type of daytime cover, despite representing only 2-4% of the area. There was a day-to-day return rate of 67% to the same 1-ha patch of cover. Evidently, sugarcane provides daytime cover for avoiding humans and for feeding on roof rats (Rattus rattus), which concentrate in this crop. Evidence suggests that breeding pairs of jackals were annual residents that defended cover (average of 37.3 ha) but not foraging areas beyond.