Sheep-killing coyotes a continuing dilemma for ranchers
AuthorsRobert M. Timm
Guy E. Connolly
Authors AffiliationsR.M. Timm is Superintendent and Extension Wildlife Specialist, HREC; G.E. Connolly is Wildlife Research Biologist (retired), USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colo., and former Staff Research Associate, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, UC Davis.
Hilgardia 55(6):26-32. DOI:10.3733/ca.v055n06p26. November 2001.
Coyote predation on the UC Hopland Research and Extension Center's research sheep has increased substantially during the last several decades, as it did for commercial sheep producers in the North Coast region. The center has evaluated a variety of lethal and nonlethal predator-control methods in an effort to find a strategy that is cost effective and practical for other producers. The most promising strategy tested was selective removal of only sheep-killing coyotes by use of the livestock protection collar, a tool that was banned in California by Proposition 4, a November 1998 ballot initiative.
Agricultural Commissioner. Crop Report, Mendocino County. 1962, 1995. Ukiah, CA:
Burns RJ, Tietjen HP, Connolly GE. Secondary hazard of livestock protection collars to skunks and eagles. J Wildl Manage. 1991. 55(4):701-4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809522
Conner MM, Jaeger MM, Weller TJ, McCullough DR. Effect of coyote removal on sheep depredation in Northern California. J Wildl Manage. 1998. 62(2):690-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802345
Connolly G. Use of Compound 1080 in Livestock Neck Collars to Kill Depredating Coyotes.. US Fish & Wildl Serv/ Denver Wildlife Res Center 1980. 125.
Connolly G. Livestock protection collars in the United States, 1988-1993. Proc Gt Plains Wildl Damage Control Workshop 1993. 11:pp.25-33.
Connolly GE, Longhurst WM. The effects of control on coyote populations. UC Div Agr Sci Bull 1872. 1975. 37.
Connolly GE, Timm RM, Howard WE, Longhurst WM. Sheep-killing behavior of captive coyotes. J Wildl Manage. 1976. 40(3):400-7. https://doi.org/10.2307/3799941
Coolahan C, Giusti GA, Timm RM, Schmidt RH. The North Coast animal damage control program. Predator Management in North Coastal California. Hopland Field Sta Pub 101 1990. pp.16-22.
Fagre DB, Howard WE, Barnum DA, Kaukeinen DE. Criteria for the development of coyote lures. 1983. pp.265-77. Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials. Am Soc for Testing & Materials STP 817, Philadelphia.
Fagre DB, Howard WE, Marsh RE, Chapman JA, Puisley D. Factors affecting coyote killing behavior: An artificial model-mimic prey system. 1981. 65. World Furbearer Conf Proc. Vol 2, Univ Maryland, Frostburg.
Fagre DB, Howard WE, Teranishi R, Peek JM, Dalke PD. Development of coyote attractants for reduction of livestock losses. Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symp. Univ Idaho, Coeur d'Alene 1982. pp.319-26.
Green JS, Giusti GA, Timm RM, Schmidt RH. Reducing predation with guarding animals. Predator Management in North Coastal California. Hopland Field Sta Pub 101 1990. pp.62-8.
Green JS, Henderson FR, Collinge MD, Hygnstrom SE, Timm RM, Larsen GE. Coyotes. Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Univ Nebr Cooperative Extension, Lincoln 1994. pp.C51-C76.
Gregory G, Fisher P, Marks CA. Perception of pain associated with 1080 poisoning. 1996. pp.62-4. Humaneness and Vertebrate Pest Control-Proceeding of the Seminar, Mar. 27, 1996. Rept Series No 2, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Victoria Instit Animal Sci, Frankston, Victoria, Australia
Hackett D, Giusti GA, Timm RM, Schmidt RH. Predator problems on California's North Coast: Economic impacts. Predator Management in North Coastal California. Hopland Field Sta Pub 101 1990. pp.23-7.
Larson S, Salmon TP. Predators and sheep management practices in Sonoma County, Calif. Proc Vertebr Pest Conf. 1988. 13:230-4.
Moore JA. Registration of Compound 1080. 1985. Environmental Protection Agency notice. Fed Reg 50:28986. July 17, 1985.
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. Sheep and Goats Final Estimates, 1994-1998. 1999. 28. USDA/NASS Statistical Bull No 954a.
Sacks BN, Jaeger MM, Neale JCC, McCullough DR. Territoriality and breeding status of coyotes relative to sheep predation. J Wildl Manage. 1999. 63(2):593-605. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802648
Scrivner JH, Howard WE, Murphy AH, Hays JR. Sheep losses to predators on a California range, 1973-1983. J Range Manage. 1985. 38(5):418-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3899712
Scrivner JH, Teranishi R, Howard WE, Green JS. Coyote attractants and a bait-delivery system. 1987. pp.38-55. Protecting Livestock from Coyotes. USDA Ag Res Serv synopsis, US Sheep Exp Sta, Dubois, Idaho
Simpson LL. Sheep and Lamb Death Loss, 1994. 1995. 36. USDA/Nat Ag Statistics Serv, Staff Rep LDP No 95-01.
Taylor RG, Workman JP, Bowns JE. The economics of sheep predation in southwestern Utah. J Range Manage. 1978. 32(4):317-21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3897840
Teranishi R, Howard WE. Coyote attractants. SID Res Dig. 1986. 4:4-6.
Timm RM, Giusti GA, Timm RM, Schmidt RH. Predator damage and research at the Hopland Field Station, UC. Predator Management in North Coastal California. Hopland Field Sta Pub 101 1990. pp.3-9.
Timm RM. Controlling coyote predation on sheep in California: A model strategy. 1999. 20. Final Rep to Calif Dept Pesticide Reg, Contract 95-0241. UC Hopland Res & Extension Ctr.
Timm RM, Connolly GE. How coyotes kill sheep. Rangemans J. 1977. 4(4):106-7.
Timm RM, Schmidt RH. Management problems encountered with livestock-guarding dogs on the UC Hopland Field Station. Proc Gt Plains Wildl Damage Control Workshop. 1989. 9:54-8.
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Animal Damage Control Program. 1994. 8. 7. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv, Washington, DC. Appendix F: Animal Damage Control “May Affect” Determinations for Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, US Fish & Wildl Serv Biological Opinion. Appendix P: Risk Assessment of Wildlife Damage Control Methods Used by USDA Animal Damage Control Program.
Walton MT. Use of livestock protection collars to protect sheep and goats. Proc East Wildl Damage Control Conf. 1991. 5:88-95.
Also in this issue:Activity levels of genetically manipulated and wild strains of Metaseiulus occidentalis (Nesbitt) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) compared as a method to assay quality
UC Research and Extension Centers: Statewide system provides local answers to local needs
Hopland celebrates 50 years of rangeland research
European grapes tested in North Coast vineyards
Research on animal-borne parasites and pathogens helps prevent human disease
Sheep research offers alternatives to improve production
Callipyge meat a tough sell
Is there a sire-dam interaction in sperm fertilizing potential?
Targeting alphas can make coyote control more effective and socially acceptable
Agroforestry is promising for previously cleared hardwood rangelands
Monitoring shows vegetation change at multiple scales
Carefully timed burning can control barb goatgrass
Animals and fungi can affect goatgrass establishment
Plant species provide vital ecosystem functions for sustainable agriculture, rangeland management and restoration
Australian varieties improve pasture in long-term annual legume trials
Watershed research examines rangeland management effects on water quality