Sheep Industry News May 2024

• Solid understanding of predator biology, as well as wild life management principles and practices. The most effective PDM employees have most or all of the above-mentioned qualities. There are no employee qualities more important than the willingness to get out and work hard and document those efforts. Effective employees have excellent people skills and are honest about what they are do ing. They get to know the livestock producers they serve on a personal basis and become involved in community-related functions. An effective employee communicates regularly with the producers they serve keeping them aware of ongoing coyote damage management efforts and involves them in the process. OTHER FACTORS FOR SUCCESS It takes extensive PDM field experience to understand the size district that can be effectively managed for coyotes within both budgetary and time constraints. The variables that play a role in this are the number of producers and livestock being served, the number of complaints received annually, varying coyote populations, amount of time spent driving, and the amount of land that needs to be covered to provide adequate service for those producers. Topography of land and access will play a role in deter mining how much land can be effectively covered by ground and/or aerial hunting operations. In states with bears, lions or wolves, the necessity for an employee to respond to these high-risk predation events will likely reduce their attention to coyote problems. Program managers might need to assign specialists to assist with seasonal predation issues – such as lion predation in the summer – or predation involving special-category predators – grizzly bears, wolves, etc. Restrictions related to public land can become a limiting factor, as well. Trappers that are very good at being efficient and managing their time effectively will be able to cover more area and complaints than those who are not. Effec tive PDM efforts require an understanding of the timeli ness and seasonality of coyote removal to prevent problems before they occur, which helps reduce workloads later. It also requires knowledge of which tools will be most efficient and cost effective in each situation and the time of year when they are most effective. Another factor that can play a significant role in changing annual PDM workloads is the presence of diseases that im pact coyote populations such as mange, distemper or parvo. ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY It is imperative that PDM programs are accountable to those who are paying for this service. This usually entails

detailed reports of daily activities and the results of those efforts. Reports can include type of complaints worked – livestock loss or request for service/preventative measures – reported and/or verified livestock loss, date and the number of hours worked, properties worked, daily miles driven with pickup and ATV, amount and type of equipment set or pulled and when these sets are checked, animals taken and by what method, dens/pups taken, hours worked with aerial opera tions, coyote fertility checked and documented, meetings attended, fuel receipts and equipment purchases. Reports generated by government agents will be considered public records and may be available under open records acts. Honest recordkeeping is imperative to relationship build ing and the integrity of an effective PDM program. As part of this program accountability, I believe it is important to have GPS coordinates and pictures of coyote dens and pictures of coyotes taken to be available upon request. Accountability develops trust between employees and livestock producers. Daily activity reports can then be compiled into monthly activity reports, as well as yearly reports to be given to those who are paying for these services. It is important to provide detailed reports whether they are requested or not. At some point, funding for all predator control programs will need to be justified and understood. MEASURING SUCCESS A Wildlife Services program in one of the Western states showed its commitment to the livestock industry in that state by developing livestock loss goals to manage for. The goal was to keep livestock losses to a minimum while monitor ing losses to keep all producers below these livestock loss goals. In the process, the program committed to reallocating resources to any producers that reached losses above these goals. The goals developed were 1 percent of calves, 3 percent of adult sheep and 5 percent of lambs within individual herds and flocks. In looking back on my own experiences, I feel that these are very realistic goals of livestock loss in many situations in the West. That being said, 2 percent calf loss might be a more realistic goal for states like South Dakota and North Dakota. With minor adjustments to different situations, I believe these goals are a good benchmark to try to achieve when adequate resources are available. In many states, livestock losses to big game predators – mountain lions and bears – are addressed on a corrective basis only and initiated after losses occur. Livestock losses to predators will never be eliminated but can be greatly reduced. Predator damage management programs are often incor rectly evaluated by comparing dollars spent per coyote killed

18 • Sheep Industry News • sheepusa.org