FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Coyote Killing is Counter Productive

In June, four environmental groups prevailed in a lawsuit against the euphemistically named federal killing agency known as Wildlife Services. The U.S. District Court for Idaho ruled that Wildlife Services had not adequately studied the impacts on wildlife of its predator-killing activities in the state. The court is formulating a remedy.

The plaintiffs asserted that Wildlife Services’ lethal control of coyotes and other predators at the behest of the livestock industry (and sometimes hunters) is based upon political expediency, not sound science.

A litany of scientific studies demonstrates that lethal methods are ineffective at controlling coyotes because they disrupt the animals’ social ecology and ultimately fail to reduce predation losses.

Wildlife Services is a secretive taxpayer-supported federal agency whose prime purpose is to kill wildlife. It uses a host of cruel methods to kill coyotes, including trapping, poison, hunting, aerial gunning and snares, all based on the flawed assumption that such procedures will reduce coyote predation on livestock, as well as huntable species like deer. Ironically, such control measures increase the likelihood of predation.

In a sense, Wildlife Services control begets more coyotes and more predation, thus creating a circular feedback mechanism that creates political support for continued agency funding. In other words, Wildlife Services does not want to see coyote predation reduced since the more predation it can create by its activities, the more funding support it receives.

The basic issue is that Wildlife Services ignores coyote social ecology.

A breeding pair of coyotes will stake out and defend a territory. If unmolested, a breeding pair will have pups and form a pack of up to 10 individuals. Each pack has a dominant breeding pair. Other adults are behaviorally “sterile” and do not breed.

This has implications for coyote control, because in areas with heavy coyote mortality, these typically “sterile” females are released and can breed.

In addition to pack members, there are always random individuals known as floaters, which usually do not maintain a territory but are available to breed if the dominant breeders are killed. These floaters form a reservoir of replacement breeders should a breeding coyote be killed.

In addition to these behavioral controls on breeding, in unexploited coyote populations that are near the saturation point in terms of food availability, many pups die of starvation and never reach maturity. In exploited populations, a greater number of pups will survive into adulthood, often negating any losses from Wildlife Services’ control efforts.

A further limit on coyote livestock predation is due to learned behavior. Coyotes, like most predators, are reluctant to sample “new” food. If they are not preying upon livestock, they are unlikely to begin. However, in exploited populations, young orphaned coyotes must fend for themselves and in desperation will prey upon livestock and become livestock killers.

To be successful at reducing coyote populations, a minimum of 70 percent of the population must be killed on a sustained basis. That is almost never achieved, and a vacant territory is quickly filled by floating individuals, or by a nearby pack.

Furthermore, due to extreme competition for food and territories, there are compensatory mechanisms that quickly repopulate any vacant space.

First, more females breed. Second, due to reduced competition for food, a greater percentage of pups survive and mature into adults. Finally, in exploited populations, female coyotes breed at a younger age. All those mechanisms ensure that coyote numbers seldom decline for any significant period.

Livestock grazing can also lead to more coyote predation by reducing cover for the preferred prey of mice and voles, which results in lower small-mammal populations.

Exploited coyote populations also have fewer adults in a pack to feed pups, thus are more likely to attack the easier prey available—which often is domestic animals.

In the end, the only alternative that is effective is nonlethal measures such as guard animals, corralling livestock at night and herding. Indeed, in some California counties, tax dollars that previously went to Wildlife Services were used for nonlethal methods, resulting in lower predation losses and lower costs.

It’s time to put the Wildlife Services killing machine out of business, and to put more responsibility upon ranchers to manage their animals in a way that reduces predator opportunity.

More articles by:

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. He serves on the board of the Western Watersheds Project.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 26, 2019
Melvin Goodman
The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio: Dangerous Lessons To Be Learned
Paul Street
Reflections and Correspondence at the Abyss
John Laforge
Trump’s Ministry of No Information
Paul Edwards
Fool Me Twice
Rob Hager
Warren and Sanders: Compare and Contrast
John Steppling
The Monkey’s Face
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World of Shadows
Jaspal Kaur Sadhu Singh
Correcting a Colonial Injustice: The Return of the Chagos Islands to Its Natives
Binoy Kampmark
Violent Voyeurism: Surveillance, Spyware and Human Rights
Jonah Raskin
Reflections on Abbie Hoffman and Joshua Furst’s Novel, Revolutionaries
Dave Chapman
The Hydroponic Threat to Organic Food
June 25, 2019
Rannie Amiri
Instigators of a Persian Gulf Crisis
Patrick Cockburn
Trump May Already be in Too Deep to Avoid War With Iran
Paul Tritschler
Hopeful Things
John Feffer
Deep Fakes: Will AI Swing the 2020 Election?
Binoy Kampmark
Bill Clinton in Kosovo
Kenneth Surin
Brief Impressions of the Japanese Conjuncture
Edward Hunt
Is Mexico Winding Down or Winding up the Drug War?
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump’s Return to Full-Spectrum Dominance
Steve Kelly
Greed and Politics Should Not Drive Forest Policy
Stephen Carpa
Protecting the Great Burn
Colin Todhunter
‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of the Food Supply for Profit
Martin Billheimer
The Gothic and the Idea of a ‘Real Elite’
Elliot Sperber
Send ICE to Hanford
June 24, 2019
Jim Kavanagh
Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back
Nino Pagliccia
Sorting Out Reality From Fiction About Venezuela
Jeff Sher
Pickin’ and Choosin’ the Winners and Losers of Climate Change
Howard Lisnoff
“Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran”
Robert Fisk
The West’s Disgraceful Silence on the Death of Morsi
Dean Baker
The Old Japan Disaster Horror Story
David Mattson
The Gallatin Forest Partnership and the Tyranny of Ego
George Wuerthner
How Mountain Bikes Threaten Wilderness
Christopher Ketcham
The Journalist as Hemorrhoid
Manuel E. Yepe
Yankee Worship of Bombings and Endless Wars
Mel Gurtov
Iran—Who and Where is The Threat?
Wim Laven
Revisiting Morality in the Age of Dishonesty
Thomas Knapp
Facebook’s Libra Isn’t a “Cryptocurrency”
Weekend Edition
June 21, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Brett Wilkins
A Brief History of US Concentration Camps
Rob Urie
Race, Identity and the Political Economy of Hate
Rev. William Alberts
America’s Respectable War Criminals
Paul Street
“So Happy”: The Trump “Boom,” the Nation’s Despair, and the Decline of Joe Biden
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Ask Your Local Death Squad
Dr. Vandana Shiva
Fake Food, Fake Meat: Big Food’s Desperate Attempt to Further the Industrialisation of Food
Eric Draitser
The Art of Trade War: Is Trump Winning His Trade War against China?
Melvin Goodman
Trump’s Russian Problem
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail