Coyotes in Their Economic Relations

Part 1

Transcriber's Note

Text emphasis displayed as Italic Text.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BIOLOGICAL SURVEY--BULLETIN No. 20

C. HART MERRIAM, Chief

COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS

DAVID E. LANTZ

Assistant, Biological Survey

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1905

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C., March 23, 1905.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith for publication as Bulletin No. 20 of the Biological Survey a report on Coyotes in their Economic Relations, prepared by David E. Lantz, assistant. The subject is of immediate importance to the sheep industry of the West, where the wasteful method of sheep herding prevails. If in the range country sheep can be fenced with coyote-proof fencing at moderate cost, as seems probable, herding may be done away with and the sustaining capacity of the lands thereby greatly increased.

Respectfully,

C. Hart Merriam, Chief, Biological Survey,

Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture.

CONTENTS.

Page.

Introduction 7

Abundance of coyotes 8 Coyotes in Kansas 9

General habits of coyotes 10

Food habits of coyotes 11 Beneficial habits 12 Injurious habits 13 Game destroyed by coyotes 14 Depredations on farm animals 14 The coyote's relation to the sheep industry 16

Means of destruction 18 Poisoning 18 Trapping 19 Hunting 20 Bounties 22

Protection against coyotes 23

Investigations concerning coyote-proof fencing 24

COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS

INTRODUCTION.

Part 2

The small prairie wolves of the western and southwestern parts of North America are generally known by the Spanish name 'coyote.' This serves to distinguish them from the larger gray or dusky wolves that occur in many portions of the same range.

Intermediate in size between the foxes and the larger wolves, yet varying greatly in this respect with the different species, the coyotes are outwardly characterized by a sharp-pointed muzzle, upright ears, and a moderately long, bushy tail. The pelage is full, especially in winter. The usual color is a dirty gray, with more or less reddish tinge about the head, neck, and legs, and black hairs showing about the shoulders and on the back. The extent of the red and the black varies much with the different species.

Coyotes are generally distributed from the central Mississippi Valley to the Pacific coast and from Costa Rica on the south to the plains of the Athabasca on the north. In this extensive range about a dozen species have been thus far recognized. Four of these are restricted to Mexico and Central America. Of the eight forms that occur in the United States, it may be remarked that their ranges and relations to each other have not been fully determined. Much material is yet needed before anyone can write with exact knowledge of their distribution.

1. Canis latrans Say. Type from Council Bluffs, Iowa. 2. C. nebracensis Merriam. Type from Johnstown. Nebraska. 3. C. lestes Merriam. Type from Toyabe Mountains. Nevada. 4. C. frustror Woodhouse. Type from Fort Gibson, Indian Territory. 5. C. mearnsi Merriam. Type from Quitobaquita, Arizona. 6. C. estor Merriam. Type from San Juan River, Utah. 7. C. cagottis II. Smith. Type from Rio Frio, Mexico. 8. C. ochropus Escholtz. San Joaquin Valley, California. 9. C. peninsulæ Merriam. Type from Santa Anita. Lower California, Mexico. 10. C. microdon Merriam. Type from Mier. Tamaulipas. Mexico. 11. C. vigilis Merriam. Type from Manzanillo. Colima, Mexico. 12. C. goldmani Merriam. Type from San Vicente. Chiapas, Mexico. ]

A group in which there is so much variation in size must also present considerable diversity of habits. The larger forms, like C. latrans, are, of course, the more injurious to the live-stock interests. Smaller species, like C. estor and microdon, confine themselves in their food more to the smaller wild mammals and thus do much less damage. Yet it is not the intention in this preliminary bulletin to consider the species separately. Indeed, no such detailed study of their habits has yet been made. The present paper deals with the group as a whole, and is confined to a discussion of the economic relations of coyotes in general to our agricultural interests.

In the matter of fencing to protect sheep and poultry against coyote depredations, the Biological Survey has made some preliminary investigations, and has formulated plans for more extensive experiments in the near future. In the meantime it is hoped that farmers and ranchmen throughout the West who have had personal experience of the efficiency of various forms of fence as a protection against coyotes and other wild animals will write the Biological Survey fully as to such experience.

ABUNDANCE OF COYOTES.

Coyotes are abundant in most parts of their range, except the extreme north and the more thickly populated regions where waste lands are scarce. It is, however, on the plains of the western part of the United States that they come most closely in contact with the advancing tide of settlement. The establishment of pioneer homes throughout the country has always resulted in restricting the numbers of the larger wolves, which have gradually become extinct over large areas in the eastern and middle parts of the United States where they were formerly abundant. Not so with the coyote. Except in a few thickly settled regions, it has thrived upon civilization and is practically as numerous as it was before settlements began. Indeed, in many parts of the West coyotes are said to be increasing in spite of a constant warfare against them.

The introduction of domestic birds and mammals has provided the coyotes with an additional food supply always available and entirely precluding any danger of starvation. Then, too, the animals are far too suspicious to be easily destroyed by the use of traps or poisons. Old hunters of the Plains have informed the writer that while it was comparatively easy to poison large numbers of the gray wolf, the coyote was not an easy victim and usually avoided both the baited traps and the poisoned buffalo carcasses.

The plains east of the Rocky Mountains and the higher plateaus of the Great Basin west of the mountains are especially adapted to the wants of the coyote. Cultivated areas are far apart: stock ranges are extensive; tall grasses, weeds, cactuses, and sagebrush afford excellent hiding places; rabbits, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and other small animals are plentiful; and, when these natural resources of the country fail, sheep and young calves furnish abundant food.

In nearly all the Western States the efforts of ranchmen to destroy the coyote have been supplemented by laws authorizing the payment of bounties from public funds. Some of these laws have been in operation for a score of years or even more and, except locally, no diminution in the general numbers of the animals has resulted. In some parts of Mexico where the natives have for many years practiced systematic poisoning, the coyote is becoming rare, but in most sections of its range it is either increasing or no substantial decrease has been observed.

COYOTES IN KANSAS.

The State of Kansas, where settlements are comparatively old and where man's warfare against the coyote has been long continued, affords an excellent illustration of the animal's ability to maintain its numbers under seemingly adverse circumstances. Most of the counties of the State have for many years paid bounties for killing coyotes, and conditions have been reached where there is little fluctuation in the total amount paid from year to year. The returns of the animals killed for the fiscal twelve months from July 1, 1903, to June 30, 1904, show that nearly 20,000 scalps were presented for bounty in the State.

The following is a table, by counties, of the number of coyotes on which bounties were paid during the year above specified. Of the 11 missing counties, 10--Cherokee. Comanche. Finney. Grant, Haskell, Kearney, Morton, Seward, Stevens, and Wyandotte--paid no bounties, and 1, Doniphan, made no report. The bounty in all cases is $1 for each animal killed.

Number of coyotes on which bounties were paid in Kansas from July 1, 1903, to June 30. 1904.

County. Number County. Number County. Number of coyotes. of coyotes. of coyotes.

Allen 73 Harper 44 Phillips 400 Anderson 129 Harvey 99 Pottawatomie 329 Atchison 48 Hodgeman 74 Pratt 242 Barber 633 Jackson 86 Rawlins 223 Barton 109 Jefferson 94 Reno 184 Bourbon 157 Jewell 106 Republic 52 Brown 70 Johnson 62 Rice 90 Butler 186 Kingman 257 Riley 206 Chase 343 Kiowa 477 Rooks 280 Chautauqua 451 Labette 137 Rush 144 Cheyenne 585 Lane 164 Russell 258 Clark 460 Leavenworth 56 Saline 186 Clay 104 Lincoln 105 Scott 193 Cloud 42 Linn 175 Sedgwick 223 Coffey 159 Logan 329 Shawnee 69 Cowley 325 Lyon 197 Sheridan 306 Crawford 51 Marion 166 Sherman 291 Decatur 240 Marshall 304 Smith 133 Dickinson 145 McPherson 210 Stafford 142 Douglas 99 Meade 224 Stanton 188 Edwards 290 Miami 96 Sumner 401 Elk 212 Mitchell 100 Thomas 185 Ellis 248 Montgomery 148 Trego 430 Ellsworth 193 Morris 176 Wabaunsee 170 Ford 500 Nemaha 58 Wallace 259 Franklin 152 Neosho 98 Washington 200 Geary 102 Ness 273 Wichita 307 Gove 355 Norton 227 Wilson 210 Graham 293 Osage 173 Woodson 115 Greeley 117 Osborne 248 Greenwood 336 Ottawa 61 Total 19,152 Hamilton 275 Pawnee 230

Continue reading Coyotes in Their Economic Relations free in the Wunder reader →