The Effectiveness of Selective Removal of Breeding Coyotes in Reducing Sheep Predation

Blejwas, Karen M.; Sacks, Benjamin N.; Jaeger, Michael M.; McCullough, Dale R.

doi:10.2307/3803178

Cited by 80 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, targeted removal of problem individuals may be more effective than a general removal of the local coyote population at reducing damage and complaints, given that most coyotes avoid human use areas and are not relying on anthropogenic foods. This strategy is similar to that for livestock depredation by coyotes (Blejwas et al 2002). However, removal programs must be accompanied by education programs directed at human behavior, particularly regarding intentional or accidental feeding of wildlife.…”

Section: Relevance For Management: a Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This question of whether the urban coyote is a synanthrope or a misanthrope has important practical implications. The probability for conflict, and associated management strategies, can be properly evaluated once we have a better understanding of the urban ecology of coyotes, much like an understanding of the ecology of coyotes has aided management of livestock predation (Knowlton et al 1999;Blejwas et al 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is the Urban Coyote a Misanthropic Synanthrope? The Case from Chicago

Gehrt¹,

Brown²,

Anchor³

2011

CATE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coyotes appear to be one of the few mammalian carnivores that occur in urban areas, although their true relationship with urbanization remains poorly understood. We summarize results from a long-term study of the urban ecology of coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area to determine the degree of synanthropy for this species and discuss the subsequent management implications for human-coyote conflicts. Local population densities were slightly higher, and survival rates for pups were five times higher compared to rural populations. In contrast to demographic patterns, behavioral responses to urbanization, including home range size, avoidance of developed land cover, activity budget, and diet, were not consistent with synanthropy, even for coyotes located in the urban matrix. We discuss the management implications of the paradoxical relationship coyotes have with people and cities.

show abstract

Section: Relevance For Management: a Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Urban Coyote a Misanthropic Synanthrope? The Case from Chicago

Gehrt¹,

Brown²,

Anchor³

2011

CATE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their status was confirmed by subsequent radiotelemetry locations and observations of pups at den sites. Males were considered alphas if they were territorial, spent a majority of their time with alpha females, and associated with pups at den sites (e.g., Blejwas et al 2002). Betas were defined as adult, resident, nonbreeding animals, and transients were defined as nonterritorial adults.…”

Section: Coyote Status and Territoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The alpha pair are the dominant breeding coyotes within a territory (e.g., Gese et al 19960;Blejwas et al 2002). They typically live in family groups together with the nondispersing young of the previous year or two (betas) and pups (e.g., Ruff 1997, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries

Séquin¹,

Jaeger²,

Brussard³

et al. 2003

Can. J. Zool.

104

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…We analyzed HREC records from 1981 through 1994 using the numbers of coyote-killed sheep together with the numbers of coyotes removed for control (Conner et al 1998). If nonselective control was effective, then removing more coyotes should have resulted in fewer sheep being killed by coyotes (that is, a negative correlation).…”

Section: Is Nonselective Removal Effective?mentioning

confidence: 99%