Coyote (Canis latrans)- Management Plan

Written By: Adam Bocskei, Emma Ross, Jesse Beauchamp & Madison Penton

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

To construct the most effective management plan, there are some important points to first consider. These include the size and topography of pasture, the intensity of predation, the number and species of livestock, the farmer’s willingness to invest financially, and the public’s perception of the strategy. In all instances however, it is clear that not doing anything will continue to result in loss, and that potential attractants should be removed regardless of which management strategy is used. The two best options for management are guardian donkeys and guardian dogs. These strategies and their implementation will be explained below. The livestock owner should select the one that best suits his or her situation.

LEGAL FACTORS

The introduction of the LPD’s is a non-lethal management solution, therefore no legal permits need to be addressed or purchased to introduce this plan. A piece of legislation that may need to be consulted is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act under the protection of property section, it states that one may harass, capture or kill the wildlife for the purpose of deterring it from damaging the one’s property. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act is a provincial legislation, but depending on the municipality there may be specific by laws pertaining to the introduction and number of livestock protection dogs that someone may have on their property.

ESTABLISHING GUARDIAN DONKEYS

Smith et al (2000) detail the most effective way for a guardian donkey to be implemented by a farmer. The use of livestock guarding donkeys should be implemented only when guarding sheep in smaller (< 240 ha), open pastures containing no more than 200 head of sheep or goat. If this is the case, a donkey will be the easiest and most effective management strategy. The donkey should be selected from medium to large stock, be female or a gelded male, and should be raised alongside the sheep from an early age. It should also be isolated from other donkeys, mules and horses as well dogs. A donkey’s effectiveness can be tested by gauging its reaction to a domestic dog introduced by a farmer. Donkeys that do not appear to be effective should be removed and replaced. As mentioned previously, a donkey is also less of a financial risk than a dog, with an average purchase price of $144, maintenance cost of $66, a life expectancy of 10-20 years, and no training required (Smith et al, 2000).

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

As with any management strategy there is always the potential for issues. Some of the issues that can happen when using donkeys as livestock guardians are getting a donkey that is not aggressive towards canids. There is a possibility of getting a non-aggressive donkey, so make sure that when you are selecting a donkey, which you know for a fact that it is bred to be a guardian or has a history of aggression towards canids (Andelt, 2004). Never get more than one donkey because they just want to stay together and lose interest in protecting the livestock. Donkeys work best in situations where there are few or just one threat at a time since they are unable to fend off multiple attackers (Andelt, 2004). Donkeys should be removed during lambing because they can disrupt the bonding between ewe and lamb. (Andelt, 2004).

ESTABLISHING GUARDIAN DOGS

According to VerCauteren et. al. (2012), before a dog can be implemented, it must first be trained. Training should begin with the process of bonding the dog to the livestock by creating a close association between the two. This bonding phase should begin when the pup is between 3 and 12 weeks of age. Human interaction with the dogs should be limited to training only. Dogs should be spayed at 6 months of age or neutered at 9 months of age to avoid the desire to roam and to reduce the risk of unplanned pups. A guardian dog is significantly more expensive than a donkey, costing between $850 – $1040 per year, with the initial purchase price of the dog varying by breed (VerCauteren et. al., 2012). This method relies on the use of living animals, and is therefore susceptible to problems (see table 2).

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

As with any management strategy there is always the potential for issues. Some of the issues that could be seen are dogs roaming outside of their range, aggression towards the livestock or towards humans or the dog does not guard the sheep (Smith et al 2000). A more detailed list of these issues and solutions can be seen in Table 2 (below) in order for this method to be successful one must dedicate substantial amounts of time and energy into the training of the dogs to try to stop any negative behaviors from occurring. If you are not able to do the training yourself the option of hiring a dog trainer would be the most effective option (VerCauteren, et al, 2012)

Table 2: Potential issues with livestock protecting dogs (adapted from   VerCauteren et. al., 2012).

PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
CAUSED BY
REMEDIED BY
AVOIDED BY
 Roaming ·         Excessive human contact

·         Dog was not spayed or neutered

·         Weakly bonded to livestock

·         Greater interest in hunting wildlife than protecting livestock

·         Fencing

·         Spay and Neuter

·         Replace breed or individual

·         Minimal attention to the dog

·         Raise dog with an already effective LPD

·         Spay and Neuter

Aggression toward livestock ·         Lack of discipline

·         Immaturity

·         Adolescence

·         Reprimand bad behavior

·         Shock collar

·         Replace breed

·         Temporary removal

·         Consistent

·         Raise with effective LPD

·         Minimize potential for boredom

Insufficient protection against offending species ·         Breed characteristics

·         Illness

·         Female in heat

·         Too few dogs

·         Replace breed that is more aggressive

·         Regular health care

·         Alternative prevention tools

·         Electrified fence

·         Use breed

·         Rear in area with offending species

·         Monitor health

·         Supply with alternative prevention tools

·         Employ more dogs

Lack of obedience and ability to handle ·         Insufficient training

·         Fearful temperament

·         Increase frequency of training

·         maintain regular contact until the dog is adult

·         avoid fearful pups

·         Early and consistent training
Lack of attentiveness toward livestock ·         Insufficient or bonding too late

·         Female in heat

·         Old dogs

·         Replace with effective dog

·         Medical checkup

·         Follow recommended bonding procedures

·         Monitor health

Insufficient patrolling of area to be protected ·         Too large of area

·         Lack of encouragement

·         Disperse resources: food, water, and shelter

·         Provide encouragement

·         Replace with more territorial breed

·         Conduct routine walks with dog within area to be protected

CONCLUSION

Livestock Guardian Dogs and Donkeys are the most effective and ethical management strategy for mitigating predation of Coyotes on livestock . Both of these are the best methods because they do not involve killing, trapping, or removing Coyotes therefore they do not require any legal documentation or permits to be implemented. Guardian dogs are effective when you have multiple threats and large herds of sheep to guard because they act as a pack to create a territory around the herd. This exclusion method works since other dog species like coyotes will not want to enter their territory and if they do the dogs will defend it. Guardian Donkeys are most effective for smaller herds with only a few or one major threat at a time because they are naturally aggressive towards canids and are very territorial. The best kind of management plan when it comes to native species like the Coyote  is one that satisfies the needs of all groups involved which is exactly what the option of Livestock Guardian Dogs and Donkeys do.

REFERENCES

Benson, J. F., & Patterson, B. R. (2013). Inter-specific territoriality in a Canis hybrid zone: spatial segregation between wolves, coyotes, and hybrids. Oecologia, 173(4), 1539-1550.        doi:10.1007/s00442-013-2730-8

Bourne, J. (2004, December 8). Protecting Livestock with Guard Donkeys. Retrieved from Alberta: Agriculture and Forestry: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9396

Bozarth, C. A., Hailer, F., Rockwood, L. L., Edwards, C. W., & Maldonado, A. E. (2011). Coyote        Colonization Of Northern Virginia And Admixture With Great Lakes Wolves. Journal Of    Mammalogy, 92(5), 1070-1080. Doi:10.1644/10-Mamm-A-223.1

Crimmins, S. M., Edwards, J. W., & Houben, J. M. (2012). Canis latrans (Coyote) Habitat Use and Feeding Habits in Central West Virginia. Northeastern

Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., & Cellar, A. C. (2011). Good fences make good neighbors:        implementation of electric fencing for establishing effective livestock-protection dogs. Human-         Wildlife Interactions, 5(1), 106-111.

Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., & Landry, J. (2010). Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century: is    an ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges?. Bioscience, (4), 299.

Genetic and morphological differentiation of wolves ( Canis lupus) and coyotes ( Canis latrans) in                northeastern Ontario. (2012). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 90(10), 1221-1230.

Gilbert-Norton, L. B., Wilson, R. R., Shivik, J. A., & Zeh, D. (2013). The Effect of Social Hierarchy on               Captive Coyote (Canis latrans) Foraging Behavior. Ethology, 119(4), 335-343.       doi:10.1111/eth.12070

Grady, W. (1995). The World of the Coyote. Vancouver : The Sierra Club.

Hansen, I., Staaland, T., & Ringsø, A. (2002). Patrolling with Livestock Guard Dogs: A Potential Method to                 Reduce Predation on Sheep. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section A, Animal Science, 52(1),      43-48. doi:10.1080/09064700252806416

Hilton, H. (1978). Systematics and Ecology of the Eastern Coyote. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Hinton, J. W., van Manen, F. T., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2015). Space Use and Habitat Selection by Resident and Transient Coyotes (Canis latrans). Plos ONE, 10(7), 1-17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132203

Magle, S., Simoni, L., Lehrer, E., & Brown, J. (2014). Urban predator-prey association: coyote and deer      distributions in the Chicago metropolitan area. Urban Ecosystems, 17(4), 875-891.       doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0389-5

Mastro, L. L. (2011). Life History and Ecology of Coyotes in the Mid-Atlantic States: A Summary of the       Scientific Literature. Southeastern Naturalist, 10(4), 721-730.

Meadows, R. (2006). Culling Coyotes Doesn’t Pay Off. Conservation In Practice, 7(3), 11.

Newsome, T., Bruskotter, J., & Ripple, W. (2015). When shooting a coyote kills a wolf: Mistaken identity or misguided management?. Biodiversity & Conservation, 24(12), 3145-3149. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-0999-0

Otstavel, T., Vuoric, K. A., Sims, D. E., Valros, A., Vainio, O., & Saloniemi, H. (2009). The first experience    of livestock guarding dogs preventing large carnivore damages in Finland. Estonian Journal Of              Ecology, 58(3), 216-224. doi:10.3176/eco.2009.3.06

Rinehart, M. E. (2011). Behaviour of North American Mammals. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

SCHELL, C. J., YOUNG, J. K., LONSDORF, E. V., & SANTYMIRE, R. M. (2013). Anthropogenic and       physiologically induced stress responses in captive coyotes. Journal Of Mammalogy, 94(5), 1131-               1140. doi:10.1644/13-MAMM-A-001.1

Swingen, M. B., DePerno, C. S., & Moorman, C. E. (2015). Seasonal Coyote Diet Composition at a Low-      Productivity Site. Southeastern Naturalist, 14(2), 397-404.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2015, July 23). Livestock Losses to Predators. Retrieved from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service : https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/operational-activities/sa_livestock/ct_livestock_losses

VerCauteren, K. C., Lavelle, M. J., Gehring, T. M., & Landry, J. (2012). Cow dogs: Use of livestock   protection dogs for reducing predation and transmission of pathogens from wildlife to cattle.              Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140128-136. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.06.006

Way, J. G. (2007). A Comparison of Body Mass of Canis latrans (Coyotes) Between Eastern and Western   North America. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(1), 111-124.

Wheeldon, T. J., & Patterson, B. R. (2012). Genetic and morphological differentiation of wolves (Canis      lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal Of Zoology, (10),             1221. doi:10.1139/Z2012-090

Young, J. K., Andelt, W. F., Terletzky, P. A., & Shivik, J. A. (2006). A comparison of coyote ecology after 25                years: 1978 versus 2003. Canadian Journal Of Zoology, 84(4), 573-582. doi:10.1139/Z06-030

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s