Species-Specific Management (SSM)

Eastern Coyote

The Eastern coyote has received a great deal of attention for a few decades, but unfortunately only from the livestock-damage-abatement standpoint rather than population management. The coyote in the southeastern United States presents a challenge to resource managers, for the species can be viewed as a population to be valued for recreation purposes (hunting with dogs, trapping, wildlife viewing) and at the same time a threat to livestock, domestic pets, and game species such as wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

Although the coyote is an opportunistic, highly adaptable predator and forager, it is widely recognized that available food is a major population determinant. Therefore, management techniques should be directed to either increasing, stabilizing, or decreasing food resources, depending on the objectives for the species. The coyote's diet can vary significantly within the same geographical area, depending on the habitat type available. Diets also vary seasonally. Food resources are utilized depending on their availability during a specific period. Management efforts can be shifted by seasons to address the resources upon which the coyote relies. Several species of microtine rodents, cottontail rabbits (Silvilagus spp.), white-tailed deer fawns, some birds including grouse and turkey, and fruits and other plant material are the primary food sources in the summer months. Fruits, specifically berries in early fall, are supplemented later in the season by hunter-injured or abandoned white-tailed deer. The diet changes primarily to rabbit and some white-tailed deer during the winter months.

Forest harvests that increase edge lengths (for example, group selection) would increase insect populations and seed production which in turn would support small mammal and bird populations for the coyote. Although white-tailed deer make up part of the coyote diet, preliminary research of predator-prey relationships in the eastern United States has indicated that only in forested wilderness areas have coyotes significantly impacted deer populations. In such areas, coyotes can intensify the effects of late winter conditions such as deep snow, and predation may become a source of additive mortality and the population declines. Forest managers can reduce the winter environmental pressures on deer and thus minimize the impacts of predation on the population by caring for and protecting deer wintering areas. Recently-cut areas can be planted with conifers that will grow quickly and provide thermal cover for deer and allow easy mobility in snow.

Coyotes now use different den types in response to the wide variety of habitats they now occupy. Above-and-below-ground dens are utilized, depending on the availability of sites. Generally, coyotes prefer to enlarge and use old burrows of woodchucks (Marmota monax) and other animals in relatively young hardwood forests. Above-ground dens can be in the form of fallen logs, brush piles, bushes, and rock crevices. It is important to note that a coyote pair tends to have several dens within one season. Multiple dens provide safe locations where pups can be relocated in the event of a threatening situation. Dens are located in relatively remote areas where the female can raise her pups safely with minimal disturbance. Slash created from forestry operations can be bulldozed into piles and large 8-inch diameter trees with low economic value can be knocked down and left to provide possible den sites.

Many states within the region have hunting and trapping regulations listing the coyote as a nuisance species and having no bag limits and no set season within which they may be taken. The possibilities for using the coyote as a game species are great, as witnessed by the success of several eastern states in which seasons have been established and licenses issued. Some states have encouraged a season for hunting with hounds that could be run off-season to provide increased recreation opportunities and to extend the overall hunting season. Trapping can be regulated as other furbearer harvests, and killing could also be encouraged during deer and small game seasons. The consumptive use possibilities can be explored after the population has been estimated over several years to see trends and thereby present a general starting point with which management activities can be compared. Even without data on the population, coyote social structure would seem to be conducive for hunting based on the compensatory argument that individuals taken would have died naturally anyway. Populations are made up of social groups of a male and female with pups and then groups of transient non-breeding individuals. The transients and dispersing juveniles have high mortality rates which could be replaced by hunting. The transients also provide a reservoir of individuals capable of taking over breeding duties if a member or members of an established pair are removed. If the coyote population in forest region is still being established (as it seems likely in 2001), the pool of transients may not be sufficient to replace breeding pairs, or perhaps dispersing young may have higher survival rates due to the large amount of available habitat.

Nonconsumptive recreation possibilities should be examined. For example, guided "howling sessions" may be conducted in which the public is invited to howl and listen for responses. A taped predator call or siren can be used to illicit calls. Tracking can be another form of recreation, especially in the winter months, and observation blinds might be another possibility along known trails or active sites. The rare presence of a large predator in the east that may be more easily seen than cougar (Felis concolor) is an attraction worth investigating.

The livestock threat from coyotes in Virginia is much easier to manage than the one facing western ranchers. Eastern farms and ranches tend to be much smaller in acreage and flock size than in the west, and enclosed pens are the primary grazing method rather than open range for the herds. The most successful preventative measure to reduce livestock depredation by coyotes is to use electric fencing. The best strategy is to utilize a 5 strand design with alternating ground and hot wires with 15 centimeter spacing (Parker, G., 1995). Expensive at the outset, the forest manager should advise the producer about the long-term benefits of possible reductions of up to 94% in losses. Less expensive, but still effective, is using proper woven wire galvanized mesh fencing to exclude predators from the flock. The fencing should be 5 feet high, and have an "apron" of fencing approximately 2 feet long extending from the bottom of the fence outward to discourage coyotes from digging underneath (Parker, G., 1995). Due to the coyote's jumping ability, an additional 18-inch overhang of fence can further discourage penetration. Guard animals are another consideration for eastern livestock producers. Donkeys and dogs have shown relatively good success rates in reducing depredation (65% or more in some cases) and are less expensive than the fencing. Donkeys are less expensive than dogs, considering feeding and maintenance, and they can live up to 20 years. One donkey (a jenny or gelding jack) for about 200 head of sheep would be optimum, but more than one donkey should not be used together since effectiveness tends to drop. Poisons may not be an option considering that the dense human populations of the state (as compared to western states) may have a negative view of lethal control. Non-target deaths of dogs and other species may occur. Other preventative measures such as lambing sheds and proper disposal of carcasses should also be recommended. The forest manager should encourage the producer to handle the problem coyotes specifically rather than to adopt a population suppression strategy considering that only a small proportion of the individual coyotes attack livestock. Coyotes foraging on fawns may be one of the only limits to deer populations in the southern Appalachian forests as deer hunting declines. Cattle producers have relatively little to be concerned about coyotes. The calving grounds should be protected, because coyotes tend to congregate and eat the afterbirth and also "bobtail" the calves by biting on their tails.

Populations of coyotes should be monitored as closely as possible throughout the initial management implementation and regular periods thereafter. Surveys will allow the manager to detect possible problems before they arise. The use of scent posts would be the optimal method for estimating the coyote population in the area, although questions of how many coyotes visit a station in one day decrease confidence in the results.

A contribution by David Telesco (1996), Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0321

Also see the thesis of Chad Phillips Auburn, 1993 a coyote survey.

Trapping best management practices (bmps) are located at http://www.furbearermgmt.org/03ecbmp.pdf

the new, updated web site (June, 2003) for the Furbearer Resources Work Group of the IAFWA is located at: http://www.furbearermgmt.org/

This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
Last revision January 17, 2000.