Sheep Industry News May 2024

Developing A Successful Coyote Management Program

SCOTT HUBER M any state and federal predator control programs began in 1915 as demonstration programs, but were expanded following the ban of toxicants in 1972. The federal government – in cooperation with state governments and other stakeholders – created predator control programs in numerous Western states as a means of providing a degree of accountability and professionalism to these programs. The predator control programs were implemented to replace banned toxicants such as Strychnine and Compound 1080. Following the ban on toxicants, coyote populations increased exponentially in many Western states despite exten sive efforts to control their numbers. This increase in coyote numbers was the primary catalyst for the development of many of these predator control programs. JUSTIFICATION FOR PREDATOR PROGRAMS It is important to understand that the justification for any predator damage management program is based on what livestock and resource losses would be in the absence of such a program. Although there are a number of studies that have been con ducted to measure livestock and resource losses in the pres ence of existing PDM programs, there were five studies which measured losses to domestic sheep in the absence of PDM programs. One of these was a study conducted in southwest Montana in the 1970s that measured livestock losses in the absence of PDM efforts. This study was unique and important from that standpoint. It was referred to as the Cook Ranch Study and the results were published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. Coyote populations were allowed to build up around the Cook Ranch for a year prior to the study. Livestock losses were evaluated and documented on the ranch for three years following this coyote population buildup. The results of this study showed the average annual lamb loss on this 1,000-plus head ewe operation to be around 26 percent for the three years of the study – with coyotes being the primary cause of predation. This study also revealed two other important fac tors contrary to popular belief. First, coyotes did not single out the sick and the weak lambs and many lambs were killed by coyotes and never fed on. This study proved what many in the PDM business have

long understood regarding what the losses would be in the absence of these PDM efforts. At one point, the study was in risk of being discontinued due to the costs of livestock loss reimbursement, but funding was obtained and the study was continued for three years. Another important observation this study revealed is that once coyote populations were allowed to build up in this area – both preceding and during this research – it was extremely difficult to reduce those coyote populations back to their historic levels. This in turn led to additional predation in subsequent years. Bodenchuk et al (2002) presented a summary of the five sheep studies, two goat studies and one calf analysis – all conducted in the absence of predation management. For the sheep studies, the average lamb loss was 18 percent, while the average adult sheep loss for those studies was 6 percent. In the two goat studies, predators killed 50 percent of the goats in one study before the landowner canceled his cooperation. In the other study, predators killed 100 percent of the goats. Calf predation in the absence of predation management was studied in Utah, where producers experiencing losses – not all cattle producers experience loss – had an average of 3.6 per cent calf loss before control was initiated. With management in place, losses can still occur, and the authors reported an average of 5 percent lamb losses, 3 percent adult sheep losses, and 0.5 percent calf losses with management in place. Clearly, an effective predation management program is necessary for those producers experiencing losses. Predation management has direct, spillover and intangible benefits (Shwiff and Bodenchuk 2004), with direct benefits to livestock producers and indirect benefits to wildlife. Direct benefits are measured in livestock saved. It is impos sible to measure what did not occur, but by comparing losses observed in the absence of predation management to the losses observed in the presence of predation management, managers can estimate the savings. Bodenchuk et al (2002) calculated savings nationwide for predation management clients from 1999, based on the expected and observed loss rates for calves, goats and sheep using the 1999 market value of those animals. The direct savings for that year was valued at $62.6 million or a 3:1 benefit/cost ratio. Indirect benefits for wildlife have been evaluated in several instances. Shwiff and Merrill (2004) calculated benefits to pronghorn from coyote removals directed at calf protection at between $75,000 and $185,000 annually for two research years in Wyoming.

16 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org