Sheep Industry News May 2024

or dollars spent per livestock loss when the most appropriate way to objectively measure the success of PDM programs is dollars spent per livestock and/or wildlife saved. There have been countless studies conducted to document the impact predators can have on big game populations, particularly when they are below management objectives and in a state of recovery. In Campbell County, Wyo., in 2013, a three-year livestock producer survey was initiated on livestock losses to predators in the county. The results of this survey showed lamb losses to predators on 29,000 mostly range lambing sheep were kept below 2.6 percent for three consecutive years. This is testimo ny to a successful PDM program. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Campbell County is surrounded by seven other counties with very good predator control programs in place that greatly enhance Campbell County’s success. In addition, we worked with a highly skilled and effective aerial hunting pilot who contributed greatly to the efficiency of the program. Trends in coyote numbers in certain areas can be moni tored from year to year by tracking the number of coyotes killed per hour of aerial hunting. There are numerous vari ables that can affect the success of aerial operations, such as ground and weather conditions, pilot/gunner efficiency, ground crew efficiency and these variables should be consid ered with any comparison of one area to the next or when comparing different years. This year-to-year comparison of the number of coyotes taken per hour of aerial hunting would be most applicable in areas with large amounts of accessible ground that is conducive to successful aerial hunting opera tions. A perfect example of a variable affecting this would be snow conditions in Northern states that enhance winter aerial hunting effectiveness by grouping coyotes near limited food sources and making them easier to spot from the air while at the same time minimizing the number of coyotes that can be taken by ground methods due to difficult accessibility. With reduced coyote control efforts in certain areas, coyote populations can quickly recover and create a corresponding increase in coyote predation as a result. When South Dakota reduced its predator control efforts in 2009, coyote popula tions increased 400 percent within three years in the tradi tional sheep producing counties of northwest South Dakota. This coyote population increase was documented based on annual aerial hunting records. As would be expected, in creases in livestock losses directly corresponded with the increase in coyote populations in this area. Another example of this would be how reports of documented livestock losses in northeast South Dakota have shown increases in calf kills

directly corresponding with an increase in annual coyote populations. In some areas conducive to effective aerial hunting – such as many areas in western North Dakota and South Dakota – one effective way to measure trapper efficiency is to compare verified ground take of coyotes to the number of coyotes taken with a common number of aerial hunting hours in that same district. In many situations, if coyotes are there to be taken by aircraft, they are there to be taken on the ground, as well, on an annual basis. Making this ground to air coyote take comparison also considers the important differences in coyote populations between different trapper districts. On average in South Dakota, 50 hours of actual hunt ing time on an annual basis is/was quite common for many trapper districts. Based on that, coyote take from 50 hours of hunting time could be used as an objective common compari son to the ground take in the same trapper district. This same ground to air coyote take ratio can also be used to compare to other trapper districts with similar circumstances. In South Dakota, most efficient, dedicated, full-time trappers had a goal to take at least as many coyotes on the ground as could be taken in the same district with 50 hours of flying. Based on my experience and the experience of many other full time PDM trappers, a minimum of 50 percent ground take seems like a reasonable and achievable goal with the right knowledge and work ethic. As an example, if a county flies 50 hours of actual hunting time in a given year and removes 250 coyotes – five coyotes per hour of aerial hunting – a full-time trapper should be able to remove a minimum of 250 coyotes on the ground in the same district in the same year. This ground to air coyote take comparison must consider extreme weather conditions that can enhance aerial hunting opera tions and limit ground take. This comparison is certainly not applicable in areas that are not conducive to successful aerial hunting operations or have limited aerial hunting opportuni ties. This comparison must also consider other designated job responsibilities. Both reported and documented livestock losses, as well as coyotes taken by both air and ground, should be used to mea sure the success of a predator control program. Year-to-year comparisons should consider the variables involved that can affect these numbers. Scott Huber is from Kadoka, S.D. He worked for the S.D. De partment of Game, Fish & Parks as a state trapper from 1986 to 2011. He also worked as a county trapper in Campbell County, Wyo., from 2012 to 2016. This is the first in a multi-part series of articles on predator damage management programs. Look for the next article in the series in the June 2024 issue of the Sheep Industry News.

May 2024 • Sheep Industry News • 19