Approximately 40 percent of the land is federally owned, much of this in large tracts in the western two-thirds of the state. Privately owned land in this western area is primarily distributed along the more accessible valleys of major drainages. It is in this same area that huge increased in land prices have occurred, due to intense competition from land development and recreational interests for accessible scenic areas. The current search for energy sources has led to additional economic pressure where fossil fuels are known to occur. In many areas, agriculture can no longer meet this intense competition and land use is shifting to other interests.

Terrain types vary from semi-desert to grassland to dense forest and alpine tundra, with elevations from 3,400 feet in Prowers County near the Kansas border to 14,431 feet at Mount Elbert, Lake County, in central Colorado. The Continental Divide winds through the central mountain area from Wyoming to New Mexico. Four large rivers; the Platte, Arkansas, Rio Grande and Colorado begin in these mountains.

We do not have absolute data on coyote numbers and livestock depredations resulting from this change in coyote management programs. We can, however, consider reports from state agencies in wildlife management and agriculture. In states that employed chemical controls prior to the Executive Order, these agencies report substantial increases in coyote numbers. Similar reports were given by ten Western Region Predator Research Committee members at their annual meeting in Hopland, California, in September of this year. These committee members also reported apparent increases in livestock losses to coyotes and observations by hunters, ranchers and county Extension agents substantiate those reports.

The presence of the group here today gives additional evidence that the coyote problem is real. Moreover, it has not been solved by current mechanical and non-lethal controls in those states where chemical controls were removed by the Executive Order and federal policy.

Method

Cost of Service

Conclusion

History.

Present Efforts to Change.

Research.

Interim Measures.

1973 Legislation.

State Actions Needed.

Conclusion.

A Game Biologist visited the Missouri Department of Conservation and observed the technique of their predator control agent. With ideas patterned after their methods, we adopted the extension type animal control program. A joint "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Arkansas Agriculture Extension Service was adopted in 1970. Their department has continued to coordinate educational meetings in conjunction with specific landowner - nuisance animal related problems.

The Commission now employs four Nuisance Animal Control Trappers three of whom are remnants of the service type era. These men upon request exhibit proper control methods to ranchers, poultry and timber growers. We work closely with County Agents and have radio contact with 130 Wildlife Enforcement Officers, who can advise persons experiencing wildlife damage of our availability. Complaint letters are forwarded to the Supervisor of the program and usually a telephone call is necessary to evaluate the justification of a trapper's visit. A recent mail survey indicated an 80% favorable response toward this type of system.

Coyotes do not dig their own dens, but enlarge existing holes dug by other animals, often those dug by badgers. Coyote den holes are not difficult to distinguish from holes dug by smaller animals. Being long-legged animals, their den entrances are elongated vertically instead of being round like those of badgers and other short-legged animals.

Time does not permit detailed comments on each question and reply. We shall only hit the highlights, and add some editorial comment where it seems appropriate.

It should be remembered that those who took the time to answer the 35 questions were devotees of the sport. This point is emphasized by the fact that of the 225 hunters who responded, 95 have been hunting coyotes for 20 years or more. The next largest group was 52 hunters who had been hunting coyotes from one to five years. Of those hunting 20 years or more, 58 hunters believed that there are more coyotes than 20 years ago and only 5 believed that there were fewer.

II. A Wildlife Management Perspective.

III. The challenge of managing carnivores.

IV. Does predation really occur?

V. Historically we have been faced with depredation problems and have been unable to resolve them when and where they arose.

VI. There have been vast changes in public sentiment and values.

VII. Let's look at some biological inputs ( coyotes).

VIII. Additional comments on meeting the problems when and where they occur.

IX. Selected readings.

Our predator damage control program is an educational effort directed at the goal of reducing livestock losses where possible on individual farms and ranches, in Kansas. Our program has been in existence since 1954. A very important aspect of our program is that we attempt to control damage rather than to control the predator population. We have found that coyotes eat whatever they can obtain the easiest. Seldom are more than a pair of coyotes involved in killing livestock at one place.

Coyote damage control is sometimes a livestock management problem. By being able to work closely with livestock specialists in a team effort the Extension Service is better able to encourage a practical lasting, solution.

Dr. Robert Hyde, Extension Specialist in Range Management at Colorado State University indicated that fencing was effective in cutting coyote damage to flocks but it was expensive. He indicated that the coyote population has been increasing at a rapid rate in Colorado and with the decrease in sheep numbers, the coyotes have turned to cattle. The main losses in cattle were in the calving season when the cow was in the process of calving or the calf was extremely young and was not able to protect itself at that age. He also indicated that losses to coyotes were higher from first-calf heifers which were not as protective of their offspring as older cows. He indicated that trappers were a help in reducing coyote population and, also, certain areas have given some sheep producers relief but the cost of trappers and the availability of experienced trappers was a problem. He also indicated that when the reduced natural food supply for coyotes occurred, they had turned to cattle in the State of Colorado. He pointed out that coyotes travel great distances in search of food and that the rotation of pastures or areas was not practical from the standpoint of the rancher indicating that the cost involved in transporting livestock to another range, even though it would be effective in helping to control predator losses, is not economically feasible.

Indiscriminate trapping, shooting and poisoning have reduced some of the rarest, most beautiful and superbly adapted species of our wildlife heritage to the brink of extinction, although they consitutue a resource that could be enjoyed by all and harvested by sportsmen under sound management principles. The war on predators has been waged with little scientific knowledge of their beneficial role in the biotic community, and without moral or ethical consideration for man's responsibility in preserving natural life as an integral part of the environment.

As I wrote in the January, 1971, issue of Field and Stream, the Division of Wildlife Services, an agency of the Interior Department, has had one prime goal at the root of its existence: to kill wildlife. It has for years gotten away with murder -- the murder of wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, badgers -- as well as anything else that might be handy.

There is no widespread agreement on numbers or severity of damage, or on the best damage control techniques to use. What works in one area of the country will not necessarily work in another. Then too, some national publicity and attention have complicated control activities in many areas. More and better surveys of both coyote populations and actual livestock damage are desperately needed so that the animal damage control specialists can handle problems with some degree of perspective and so the public can be shown that predator control activity is necessary and biologically sound.

Ranchers and farmers are in a squeeze in some areas--they need help and that help must be both effective in reducing/eliminating losses and be acceptable to the public body. Mechanical/nonmechanical, lethal/nonlethal methods of control have been explained in some detail. Livestock management is important and cannot be ignored. To be of value all these techniques must be balanced against economic factors, public reaction, and practical application considerations.

According to data collected since 1936 (and based on the number of coyotes bountied per 100 square miles in counties offering bounties) our coyote population seems to be increasing on a steady line, except for some comparatively minor fluctuations downward •. The number of damage complaints has remained rather steady throughout the years, while the coyote population has doubled and tripled--perhaps indicating that coyote damage is not directly proportional to coyote numbers.

Coyotes are not uncommon in all of Missouri's 114 counties and are present even within the incorporated city limits of Kansas City and St. Louis. Based on bountied animals and damage complaints, we know that our highest density is in the western prairie counties and the northern river-break hills. Damage is relatively light in the Missouri Ozarks and the Mississippi delta country.

Program Planning Committee

Registered Attendance

Preface

Table of Contents

Many of the visual materials presented have a large price tag--especially motion pictures and video cassettes. Motion pictures in production of materials; and cassettes in equipment investment.

I urge consideration of cooperative production on those topics that have general agreement on content and universal need. A content compromise, as long as one has some input, is reasonable when one considers costs such as $15,000 - $40,000 for 30-minute film production versus $100 - $150 for a print of that production. Details of local programs can then be provided with inexpensive handouts, slide sets, etc.

Agricultural producers want to know the skills to control depredating wildlife. A high powered rifle, traps, and various related equipment are standard for most livestock production operations.

Through the Extension effort we attempt to help the producer develop wildlife damage control skills. It is also our responsibility to help develop alternatives to aid the livestock producer with persistent wildlife damage problems. The Kansas Card Carrying Coyote Hunter Program is an innovative and thus far very effective alternative wildlife damage control tool.

The program was conceived and implemented by F. Robert Henderson, the Extension Wildlife Damage Control Specialist at KSU during 1972.

History

Procedures

Results

Conclusion

The Missouri River bisects South Dakota into approximately equal "East River" and "West River" land areas. These differ ecologically, and to a lesser extent politically, in several respects. From an agricultural standpoint, we are somewhat unique in that we have both small-farm and ranching enterprises differing in size, intensity of land use, and primary crops or livestock types produced. West River areas include a diversity of geomorphic land forms including prairie, sagebrush grasslands, river breaks, badlands, and mountains. All support ranching operations and each presents unique animal damage control problems. East River farms are smaller and livestock generally is more confined. Many East River counties contain 75 or more percent cropland, but those bordering the Missouri River or in the north-eastern corner of the state are characterized by large areas mainly suitable for grazing.

East and West River areas raise approximately equal numbers of sheep. Coyotes occur across the state but are much more numerous in West River. Red foxes also occur statewide and in recent years they have apparently increased markedly in northwestern South Dakota. Both the coyote and the fox prey upon sheep~ This type of wildlife inflicted damage receives by far more publicity in the state than other depredations but in dollar-loss terms it is not the most important. Removal of grassland vegetation by rodents such as prairie dogs, ground squirrels and pocket gophers far outranks predation on sheep economically and has a much greater impact on the South Dakota agricultural economy. A great deal of the energy devoted to animal damage control in South Dakota is, however, directed at protecting the sheepgrower from coyote and fox depredations.