hunting in grasses COVERS

in Our MidstCoyotesCoyotes

Authors: Camilla H. Fox, Christopher M. Papouchis

Editors: Karen Hirsch, Gil Lamont

Creative Director: Barbara T. Lawrie

Research/Review: Barry Kent MacKay, Shelly McGill, Nicole Paquette

COEXISTING WITH AN ADAPTABLE AND RESILIENT CARNIVORE

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

Table of Contents 1

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

Coyote Biology and Ecology .............................................................................. 5Appearance ............................................................................................................................... 5Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................. 5Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 5Diet ............................................................................................................................................ 7Social Organization ................................................................................................................. 8

The Role of Coyotes in Ecosystems .................................................................. 9

Traditional Management of Coyote-Human Conflicts ................................. 10History .................................................................................................................................... 10Opposition to Predator Control Programs .................................................................... 10Extent of Livestock Losses to Coyotes ........................................................................... 12Economics of Livestock Protection Programs ................................................................ 15Lethal Methods Used to Address Conflicts with Livestock ........................................ 15The Effect of Lethal Control on Coyotes and Conflicts .............................................. 18

Alternative Strategies for Managing Livestock Conflicts with Coyotes ..... 21Changing Public Attitudes ................................................................................................... 21Livestock Husbandry and Nonlethal Techniques for Reducing

and Preventing Conflicts ................................................................................................ 21Creating a Rural Coyote Coexistence Program ............................................................ 27

Conflicts with Coyotes at the Urban/Wildlands Interface ........................... 30Overview ................................................................................................................................ 30Coyote Biology and Ecology in Urban/Suburban Areas ............................................... 31Non-lethal Techniques for Reducing and Preventing Conflicts .................................. 34Creating an Urban Coyote Coexistence Program ........................................................ 36

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 39

Notes ................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix: State Classification and Management of Coyotes ...................... 44

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary

2 Coyotes in Our Midst

FEW ANIMALS evoke as wide a range of feelingsin humans as the coyote. To some, coyotes are icons ofAmerican culture, ecologically important, and worthyof respect and protection. To others, they aredangerous, despised vermin who are better dead thanalive. Most people likely have a view somewhere inbetween.

The coyote is the most persecuted native carnivorein the United States. Hundreds of thousands of coyotesare killed each year by hunters, trappers, ranchers, andgovernment agents.1 Since 1916, the FederalCooperative Animal Damage Control program alonehas killed nearly six million coyotes, an average of morethan 71,000 a year. In Fiscal Year 2003, the U.S.Department of Agriculture trapped, shot, and poisoneda reported 75,724 coyotes. While most coyotes arekilled because they are considered a threat to livestock,they also have become increasingly targeted because oftheir activities in suburban and urban areas.

However, intense and widespread efforts to controlcoyotes have generally failed to produce long-lastingresults. Rather, attempts to eradicate or suppresscoyote populations have proven to be counterproduc-tive.

It is widely held by the scientific community thatpredator eradication programs are futile andecologically devastating. This publication charts a bettercourse. It provides readers with information on thewide array of practical and proven techniques availableto ranchers and suburbanites for coexisting withcoyotes.

Coyotes in Our Midst looks first at coyote biology andecology and considers the species’ role in ecosystems.Following chapters examine traditional management ofhuman-coyote conflicts and why such efforts havefailed. The fact is, coyotes are here to stay. Moreover,with increased urbanization and development, conflictbetween humans and coyotes will undoubtedly

continue. Many scientists and wildlife managersconclude that the only viable long-term solution toresolving conflicts with coyotes is educated coexist-ence and the implementation of effective, sociallyacceptable, and humane mitigation techniques. Thispublication responds to that need.

Outlining proactive measures for managing conflicts,Coyotes in Our Midst is a call to action for land and homeowners, ranchers, policymakers, and communities. Thepages within analyze a wide array of practical andproven techniques — from livestock guard dogs tomotion-activated scare devices — that, when usedcorrectly and especially in combination, can significantlyreduce, if not eliminate, negative interactions betweencoyotes and humans. Whether the aim is to reducelivestock predation or keep companion animals safe,the approach outlined in this publication has thepotential to change attitudes towards coyotes and tocreate effective and long-lasting solutions in communi-ties.

The Animal Protection Institute (API) has taken aleading role in assisting communities with coyoteconflicts. API advocates a multi-faceted approach toconflicts, including treating the source of the problemand not the symptoms, fostering collaboration amongaffected stakeholders, and educating the public throughpersistent outreach efforts. Coyotes in Our Midst is partof that effort and API hopes that everyone reading thispublication will respond to the challenge it lays down.The advice and research here will help communities,agencies, public officials, and concerned individualsresolve conflicts with practical and humane solutions.

It is clear that lethal efforts to manage conflicts withcoyotes have largely failed. The way forward is toimplement a different approach — humane, practicalsolutions that have the real potential to preventconflicts with coyotes wherever they occur.

IntroductionIntroduction

Introduction 3

COYOTES are one of the most resilient andadaptable native carnivores in North America. By theirnature, carnivores, including wolves, mountain lions,bears, foxes, bobcats, and lynx, prey on other animals tosurvive. Unfortunately, this trait has fosteredwidespread misunderstanding and prejudice, and haslargely defined how humans treat predators.

A common sight to many indigenous culturesinhabiting North America prior to the arrival ofEuropeans, coyotes were generally respected for theirintelligence, cunning, and adaptability. The name coyoteis derived from the Aztec word coyotyl, which, looselytranslated, means trickster. Native folklore creditedcoyotes with creating life and even endowed them withhuman traits. Some Native American cultures still referto the animal as Old Man Coyote, Little Wolf, andMedicine Dog.

European settlers, however, sought to eradicatecoyotes and other native carnivores, such as wolves,bears and mountain lions, because they viewed them asthreats to livestock and as competition for the speciesthey hunted. By the 1950s, mountain lions had beenextirpated from much of their historic habitat in the 48contiguous U.S. states and eastern Canada, and wolvesand grizzly bears had been all but eradicated in most ofthe U.S. and in parts of Canada. Yet the coyote, aspecies of wild dog found only in North America,persevered.

Today, the coyote is the most persecuted nativecarnivore in the United States. Federal, state, and localgovernments and private individuals kill hundreds ofthousands of coyotes annually, primarily for the benefitof livestock producers. Coyotes are also killed for theirfur, for sport, and in body-count contests where prizesare awarded for killing the greatest number of animals.While the killing of most species is regulated by law inthe form of designated hunting seasons and bag limits,many states still classify coyotes as “vermin,”

“predatory mammals,” or “unprotected species,”thereby providing no protection or regulatoryoversight. Such classifications allow hunters, trappers,and ranchers to kill an unlimited number of coyotesyear-round, often with any available method (see“Appendix: State Classification and Management ofCoyotes” on p. 44).

Unlike wolves and grizzly bears, coyotes havethrived under persecution. There are now morecoyotes in North America than ever before.Indiscriminate killing of coyotes has proven futile andeven counterproductive. Nevertheless, many wildlifemanagers continue to promote lethal control as thebest method to address conflicts. An increasing numberof biologists and researchers, however, recognize thevital ecological role coyotes and other large carnivoresplay in maintaining the biodiversity, stability, andintegrity of native ecosystems.

Coyote Biology and EcologyCoyote Biology and Ecology

APPEARANCECoyotes are rather similar in appearance to a small,

grizzled gray or reddish-gray German shepherd, withbuff underparts, long rust or yellowish legs, a bushy tail,and pointed snout. Often mistaken for wolves, coyotesgenerally are smaller and more slender, with a relativelymore narrow snout and larger ears. While running dogsand foxes usually carry their tails straight out from theback, coyotes run with theirtails hanging lower. Thetypical weight of a coyoteranges from 20 to 50pounds, with a body lengthof 32–37 inches and a taillength of 11–16 inches.Coyotes living in northernregions and the mountainsare substantially larger andmore heavily furred thanthose living in the south andin deserts. The largestcoyotes live in the northeast,in part the result of inter-breeding with wolves anddomestic dogs.

TAXONOMYCoyotes, whose scientific

name is Canis latrans (“barking dog”), are native toNorth and Central America, ranging from Alaska toCosta Rica, having evolved into their present formsome 10,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene age.Coyotes are closely related to the gray wolf (Canislupus), red wolf (Canis rufus), Australian dingo (Canislupus dingo), jackal (Canis aureus), and domestic dog(Canis familiaris). More distant relatives include the redfox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),and swift, or kit, fox (Vulpes velox).

DISTRIBUTIONThe discovery of coyote fossils in Maryland and New

Brunswick suggest that they may have once roamedmuch of North America during the Pleistocene.However, when Europeans first arrived, coyotes werelimited mainly to the grasslands and prairies ofsouthwestern Canada, the central United States, andnorth-central Mexico.2 As white settlers pushed

westward in the 1800s,coyotes moved into newareas in response to humanactivity and changes in thelandscape. Attracted by thegarbage and clearings left bygold miners, coyotes ex-panded their range to thenorth and west into theYukon and later into Nevadaand California, and south asfar as Panama. Deforestationof the eastern woodlandsand the extirpation of thecoyotes’ competitors, suchas the gray wolf, allowedcoyotes to move eastward inthe 1900s. They extendedtheir range into the GreatLakes states by the 1930s,

and into New England a decade later. Introduction ofcoyotes for hunting and the release of captive animalsaided the coyote’s immigration into some southeasternstates in the latter half of the twentieth century.

In all, coyotes have expanded their range threefoldsince the 1850s.3 At least nineteen subspecies of coyotenow roam throughout North America, from Californiato Newfoundland and from Alaska to Panama. Theyoccupy a broad range of habitats, including grasslands,deserts, eastern woodlands, boreal forests, agricultural

Coyotes are native to North and Central Americaand evolved into their present form approximately

10,000 years ago.

Coyote Biology and Ecology 5

Coyote Range pre-1850

Current Coyote Range

The coyote’s range hasincreased dramatically

since the mid-nineteenthcentury, and at leastnineteen subspecies

occupy a broad range ofhabitats throughout North

America.


lands, urban parks, and the urban/suburban fringe.

DIETAlthough classified as a carnivore, coyotes are

omnivorous and highly opportunistic feeders, and sharesimilar feeding traits with both wolves and foxes. Likewolves, coyotes can kill large prey such as deer and elk,especially when hunting in groups. Like foxes, they areexpert mousers, and are skilled at catching groundsquirrels and woodchucks, rats, and rabbits. Thesuccess of coyotes is a testament to their ability tosurvive and even thrive on whatever food is available.Ninety percent of their diet consists of small mammals(including relatively fresh carrion), but they also feed onfish, frogs, snakes, large insects, fruits, berries, and nuts.4

In northern climates, when snow makes it difficult tofind rodents inwinter, coyotesmay prey onlarge ungulatessuch as elk anddeer. In agricul-tural areas, coy-otes sometimesprey on domes-tic livestock suchas sheep andpoultry, espe-cially when theirnatural prey hasbeen reduced oreliminated byhuman activities.In suburban andurban areas, coy-otes may preyon free-roamingand unattendeddomestic cats and small dogs and feed on uncoveredcompost piles, overflowing bird feeders, and unsecuredgarbage.

SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONThe demographics and dynamics of coyote

populations have been strongly affected by humanefforts to eradicate and otherwise control them. Atpresent, nearly all coyote populations in NorthAmerica are hunted, trapped, or otherwise exploited.In the United States, only three populations remainunexploited. Studies of these populations in YellowstoneNational Park, Grand Teton National Park, and theadjacent National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, as well as inthe Arid Lands Ecology Reserve at the Hanford nuclearfacility in Washington, have produced remarkableinsight into the natural history and ecology of coyotes.

For decades it was believed that coyotes livedpredominately solitary lives; however, coyotes havealso been documented living as pairs and in extendedfamily groups.5 The flexibility and social structureobserved in coyotes is a response to numerousecological parameters and, in many cases, humanexploitation. Where ungulates such as deer areavailable, coyotes may readily form packs to killtogether an animal that they could not kill alone. Whererodents, lagomorphs, or other small prey are abundant,coyotes often live solitary lives, since small animals areeasy prey for a single coyote.

Another factor that is thought to influence coyotegroup size is the absence of wolves in the areas wheretheir ranges once overlapped. In some areas,particularly Yellowstone National Park, coyotes may

have filled theniche of a toppredator by hunt-ing large preysuch as deer. Be-cause of the re-cent introductionof wolves backinto this ecosys-tem, researchersare interested indocumenting thewolves’ influenceon coyotes, theirsocial structure,and their foragingbehavior.

Like wolves,coyotes can livein highly devel-oped, family-ori-ented societies,

particularly in unexploited populations. In populationsthat are unexploited or lightly exploited by humans, 65–90% of coyotes may be members of a pack.6 Pack sizesgenerally ranges from a single pair to 10 animals,excluding pups. The pack is led by an alpha male andfemale pair, who control and maintain the territory andretain their position over the rest of the pack throughdominance behavior. Under the alpha pair are thesubordinate beta adults, who were generally born intothe pack in previous years and remained. Betas whohelp rear pups are known as helpers, while those whoshare the territory and interact with the alpha pair butdo not aid with feeding, rearing or guarding of pups aresometimes referred to as slouches.7

The pack’s strong social hierarchy generally limitsbreeding to the alpha pair, who produces a single litterof four to eight pups each spring. In unexploited

Coyotes are omnivorous, highly opportunistic feeders;approximately 90 percent of their diet consists of small mammals.

Coyote Biology and Ecology 7

populations, roughly two-thirds of these pups willsurvive past five months and be recruited into thepopulation.8 In rare instances, the alpha male will alsobreed with a beta female to produce a “double litter,”although very few pups born to betas survive past theirfirst year.9 Thus, even though females are capable ofreproducing at one year of age, they must generally waittwo to five years to breed.10 Adults have reproductivelives of roughly three to ten years,11 although theirreproductive capability generally begins diminishing ataround age seven.12

Coyote populations also contain lone coyotes, who,as noted, may be more common in exploitedpopulations. Lone coyotes who occupy but do notdefend home ranges are called solitary residents, whilethose who range over large areas searching for a mateand territory are known as nomads.13

Coyotes are highly territorial, and packs occupy anddefend on average a 10 square kilometer area.14 Coyoteterritories are generally larger in northern areas (e.g.,55–143 sq. km. in Washington) than in southern areas(e.g., 4–5 sq. km. in Texas).15 Coyote territories may bemuch smaller in urbanized areas (see p. 32). Theterritories of neighboring packs do not overlap greatlyand may vary considerably in size due to differences inhabitat quality and the abundance of prey.

The number of coyotes in a pack, and therefore inthe larger population, is largely a function of thehabitat’s carrying capacity, specifically the availability offood. The abundance of food regulates coyotereproduction, survival, dispersal of yearlings out of thepack, delineation of territorial boundaries, and numberof territories in an area.16

For example, in Yellowstone National Park, wherecoyotes are protected from exploitation, coyote packsize depends largely on the availability of large carrion inwinter.17 More carcasses mean more members of thepack can feed, and thus the pack stays together. In timesof scarcity, however, the alpha female may producefewer pups, and yearling coyotes may be forced to leavethe pack to find food, leading to smaller pack sizes.

Competition among neighboring packs for habitatand food also regulates the size of individual packs.18

Being a member of a pack and possessing a territoryimproves a coyote’s access to food, chances forsurvival, and breeding opportunities over transientcoyotes.19 Yellowstone coyotes with greater access tocarrion in winter, generally those older and moredominant individuals, typically remain in packs and thustheir packs remain large.20 Older, more experiencedcoyotes are also better hunters of small and largeprey.21

In unexploited coyote family groups, breeding is generally limited to the alpha pair,which produces a single litter of pups each spring.


The Role of Coyotesin Ecosystems

The Role of Coyotesin Ecosystems

FOR DECADES, ecologists have understood thatwithin a given habitat, every species connects to anddepends upon other species, and therefore contributesto the overall integrity of the habitat. Biologists haveidentified as “keystone species” those whose absencewould lead inexorably to the extinction of other formsof life. The disappearance of a keystone species triggersthe loss of other resident species, unraveling theintricate connections among the remaining residents ina cascading effect.

Coyotes have been foundto play an integral role inmaintaining the health andintegrity of a variety of nativeecosystems, including chap-arral, grasslands, and wet-lands.22 Coyotes can have a“top-down” effect on eco-systems, primarily by regu-lating the numbers of smallerpredators, such as foxes,raccoons, skunks, and feralcats through competitiveexclusion and direct killing.Research in the fragmentedurban habitats of coastalsouthern California indicatesthat the absence of coyotesallowed smaller predators toproliferate, leading to a sharpreduction in the number and diversity of scrub-nestingbird species.23 Other studies have found that coyoteshave similar indirect effects on songbirds andwaterfowl.24

Researchers at Texas Tech University have

reported that the killing of nearly all the coyotes in a5,000-hectare area caused a significant increase in thenumbers of jackrabbits, badgers, gray foxes, andbobcats, and a severe decline in the diversity of rodentspecies.25 Notably, they concluded that removingcoyotes to protect livestock could actually becounterproductive: “Increased jackrabbit densitycaused by a lack of predation could cause increasedcompetition for forage between jackrabbits and

livestock…consequently, areduced stocking rate [oflivestock] may be requiredto offset competition, whichmay financially negate thenumber of livestock savedfrom predation.”26

In the northeastern U.S.,researchers speculate thatcoyotes may help controloverabundant white-taileddeer populations in subur-ban areas, thereby reducingthe deer’s impact on nativevegetation and birds.27 Oneresearcher has even sug-gested that by reducing thenumber of deer in theseareas, coyotes may furtherbenefit humans by control-ling the spread of Lyme

disease that is carried by deer ticks.28

In sum, coyotes can play an invaluable role inmaintaining the health and integrity of a variety of nativeecosystems. Conversely, their removal can lead to theunraveling of those same landscapes.

The Role of Coyotes 9

Coyotes play an integral role in maintaining the healthand integrity of a variety of native ecosystems.

Traditional Management ofCoyote-Human Conflicts

Traditional Management ofCoyote-Human Conflicts

HISTORYThe treatment of coyotes throughout American

history parallels other North American largecarnivores with one important difference: The coyotehas prospered as others have been driven towardextinction.

Up until the mid-twentieth century, the dominantmanagement strategy toward coyotes and otherpredators was that oferadication, with thegoal of wholly elimi-nating the speciesfrom the Americanlandscape. The Euro-pean colonists whofirst settled NorthAmerica encounteredwolves and mountainlions along the east-ern seaboard. Theyviewed these largecarnivores as a threatto livestock, competi-tion for game species,and a danger to publicsafety, and endeav-ored to exterminatethem. Pushing west-ward in the early-to-mid-1800s, settlerscontinued to kill na-tive carnivores as wellas bison, elk, andother large grazinganimals to clear the

caption area

land for domestic livestock and farming. Ranchers,bounty hunters, professional hunters, and trapperskilled thousands of coyotes, wolves, bears, andmountain lions. Large-scale cattle grazing resulted in thewidespread depletion of vegetation and the wildlife thatconsumed it. Without natural prey, the remainingcoyotes, wolves, bears, and cougars were forced toprey on livestock to survive, which only bolstered

predator eradicationcampaigns.

In 1891, Congresspassed a law settingaside federal forestreserves, a move thatled to the establish-ment of the U.S.Forest Service in1905. The newlyimplemented, albeitminimal, fees chargedby the Forest Serviceto ranchers for graz-ing livestock on publicland engendered theexpectation that thefederal governmentwould also help pro-tect livestock frompredators.

In 1915, the U.S.federal governmentofficially became in-volved in predatoreradication efforts.Agricultural interests


© D

AV

ID P

ETT

IT

pressured Congress to appropriate $125,000 for theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Bureau ofBiological Survey to conduct systematic strychninepoisoning campaigns targeting wolves, mountain lions,coyotes, foxes, bears, and eagles on the public domainlands of the West. The Bureau hired hundreds ofhunters and trappers to kill predators. A biologist forthe Bureau reflected official policy when he suggestedthat “large predatory mammals, destructive of livestockand game, no longer have a place in our advancingcivilization.”29

In 1931, livestock operators and hunters lobbiedCongress to pass the Animal Damage Control Act,which formalized and expanded predator eradicationefforts. The Act, which remains nearly unchanged tothis day, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to“promulgate the best methods of eradication [and]suppression [of] mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, bobcats,prairie dogs, [and] gophers . . . for the protection of stock andother domestic animals . . . and to conduct campaignsfor the destruction or control of such animals”(emphasis added).30 Any uncertainty about thegovernment’s position vanished when the USDA statedin its 1934 yearbook that the government’s goal was the“total extermination of the coyote in the UnitedStates.”31

The principal methods for eradicating and otherwisecontrolling predator populations in the early half of thetwentieth century were leghold traps, snares, shooting,denning, and strychnine-laced baits. The “coyote-

getter,” a cartridge-powered predecessor of today’sspring-powered M-44 sodium cyanide ejector, waswidely used after its introduction in the early 1940s.Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) and thalliumsulfate, two highly toxic poisons, were used afterWorld War II. Use of thallium sulfate was discontinuedby the federal government in the early 1950s because ofits impacts on non-target species, but Compound 1080,although it also kills non-target species and is a threat tohuman life, remained a favorite tool of the predatoreradication program.

The widespread use of coyote-getters, strychninebaits, and Compound 1080 in the 1940s and 1950s hada significant impact on large carnivore populations. Bythe mid-1950s, grizzly bears, wolves, and mountainlions had been exterminated in all but a few areas of thelower 48 states.

Records indicate that from 1916 to 1999, nearly sixmillion coyotes were killed by the Federal CooperativeAnimal Damage Control; almost two million of thesesince 1976.32 The Federal Cooperative Animal DamageControl Program was also responsible for killingapproximately 26,000 bears, 500,000 bobcats, 50,000red wolves, 1,600 gray wolves, and 8,000 mountainlions between 1937 and 1983.33 Today, the federalanimal damage control program falls under the auspicesof the USDA’s Wildlife Services (WS) program,previously called Animal Damage Control. In Fiscal Year2003 alone, Wildlife Services trapped, shot, andpoisoned 75,724 coyotes (see Table 1). Hundreds of

Until relatively recently, coyote management in the U.S. focused on eradication,with the goal of eliminating the species from the American landscape.

Traditional Management 11

© JA

MES

BA

LOG

thousands more coyotes were killed by state and localgovernments and private individuals and hunt clubs.Since not all states require that hunters, trappers, andranchers report the number of coyotes killed, noaccurate total is available. In sum, from 1996 to 2004,Wildlife Services killed more than 14 million animals inthe U.S. to benefit agricultural interests.34

OPPOSITIONTO PREDATOR CONTROL PROGRAMS

Predator eradication programs targeting coyotesand other predators have faced significant criticism andopposition over the years. In 1930, the AmericanSociety of Mammalogists referred to the federal animaldamage control program, then under the auspices ofthe Bureau of Biological Survey, as “the mostdestructive organized agency that has ever menaced somany species of our native fauna.”35

In 1963, public outrage erupted after a young boylost an eye to an M-44 set by federal predator controlagents. To address increasing public interest inprotecting wildlife and intense opposition to thewidespread use of lethal predator control, Secretary ofthe Interior Stewart Udall commissioned Dr. StarkerLeopold (son of famed American conservationist AldoLeopold) to chair a committee to investigate and makerecommendations on the Animal Damage Controlprogram. The 1963 Leopold Report charged that theprogram practiced indiscriminate and excessive killingof predators and posed a significant threat to imperiledspecies. Yet the report was largely ignored by thegovernment and no significant reforms were made tothe Animal Damage Control program.

In 1966, Congressman John D. Dingell held hearingson the federal predator control program, whichstrongly condemned the government’s efforts toeradicate native carnivores.

It is well known that over the years predatorcontrols actually practiced by governmental and privateorganizations have been considerably in excess of theamount that can be justified, particularly when totalpublic interest is considered. In fact, indiscriminatetrapping, shooting, and poisoning programs againstcertain predators have been so effective that it hasresulted in reducing their number to such an extentthat their continued existence is now endangered. Insome cases, methods of control, such as poisoning, areproducing secondary killings of certain species that arealready on the endangered list.36

Several years later, in 1971, Secretary of the InteriorRogers Morton commissioned the Cain Report, namedfor Stanley Cain, Chairman of the six-personcommittee. Among other recommendations, the CainReport called for an immediate prohibition of allexisting toxic chemicals used for predator control. The

Cain Report concluded that the predator controlprogram:

. . . contains a high degree of built-in resistanceto change . . . the substantial monetarycontribution by the livestock industry serves as agyroscope to keep the bureaucratic machinerypointed toward the familiar goal of generalreduction of predator populations, with littleattention to the effects of this on the nativewildlife fauna.

Guidelines and good intentions will no longersuffice. The federal-state predator controlprogram must be effectively changed. It must takefull account of the whole spectrum of publicinterests and values, not only in predators but inall wildlife. This will require substantial, evendrastic, changes in control personnel and controlmethods, supported by new legislation, adminis-trative changes, and methods of financing.37

Yet increased opposition to wide-scale predatorcontrol by the scientists and the public, as well asCongressional directives, has failed to reduce theprevalence of lethal control efforts. A 1995Government Accounting Office (GAO) reportconcluded that “ADC personnel in western states uselethal methods to control livestock predators despitewritten USDA policies and procedures givingpreference to the use of non-lethal control methodswhere practical and effective.”38 While the goal ofcoyote management has shifted in the past forty yearsfrom eradication to suppression of populations, therehas been virtually no decline in the number of coyoteskilled under the auspices of the federal animal damagecontrol program.

EXTENT OF LIVESTOCK LOSSESTO COYOTES

Livestock losses attributed to coyotes and othernative carnivores are relatively low when compared toother causes. According to a National AgriculturalStatistics Service (NASS) survey, “Predator lossesaccounted for just 2.2% of all cattle losses in 1995 . . .bad weather killed seven times more animals than didpredators. So did calving problems. Illness killed 11times as many and five times as many animals died from‘unknown’ reasons . . . of nine categories for dead ormissing cattle only poison and theft took a lower tollthan predators.”39 In 2000, NASS found that,considering all factors responsible for cattle deathsnationwide, including predation, weather, disease,injury, starvation, dehydration, and other factors, nativecarnivores were responsible for the loss of only 0.15%of the cattle/calf population nationwide.40



Tabl

e 1

Tabl

e 1

The

num

ber

of c

oyot

es k

illed

and

the

met

hods

use

d in

the

U.S

.by

the

USD

A W

ildlif

e Se

rvic

es p

rogr

am in

fisc

al y

ear

2003

(U

PD

AT

ED

)(s

tatis

tics

obta

ined

fro

m t

he U

SDA

Wild

life

Serv

ices

pub

licat

ion,

“N

umbe

r of

Ani

mal

s Ki

lled

and

Met

hods

Use

d by

the

WS

Prog

ram

, FY

2003

,” w

ww

.aph

is.us

da.g

ov/w

s/ta

bles

/03t

able

10t.p

df)

ST

AT

ET

RA

PP

ING

SH

OO

TIN

GP

OIS

ON

ING

OT

HE

RT

OT

AL

Leg

Nec

kA

eria

lC

age

Kill

Legh

old

Snar

eSn

are

Gun

ning

Spot

*C

all†

Shot

‡M

-44

LPC

Oth

erD

enni

ngO

ther

AK

00

20

20

00

20

00

00

6

AL

00

150

00

00

00

00

00

15

AZ

00

175

39

502

535

450

00

00

774

CA

00

7723

21,

511

344

165

1,18

61,

801

210

1041

540

36,

165

CO

00

250

231,

664

225

612

328

00

2126

62,

408

FL

00

90

00

10

10

00

00

11

GA

00

150

00

00

00

00

00

15

IA0

00

00

00

02

00

00

02

ID0

038

00

135

2,61

90

658

145

127

012

775

674,

333

IL0

00

01

00

010

00

00

011

IN0

00

00

03

00

00

00

03

KS

00

30

20

00

10

00

00

6

KY

00

00

50

00

00

00

00

5

LA

00

110

139

00

013

00

00

016

3

MA

00

00

00

00

70

00

00

7

MI

00

30

00

00

00

00

00

3

MN

00

412

00

00

00

00

00

43

MO

00

30

40

50

40

00

00

16

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge


Tabl

e 1

Tabl

e 1

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revio

us p

age

MS

00

110

20

00

00

00

00

13

MT

00

195

063

85,

540

062

365

490

024

174

264

8,01

3

NC

02

10

00

00

00

00

00

3

ND

00

159

049

394

90

292

3871

90

422

122,

688

NE

20

164

019

762

20

6824

1,47

10

127

02,

567

NM

00

737

048

52,

089

063

120

01,

256

40

00

5,40

2

NV

00

698

017

93,

260

024

615

811

80

059

774,

795

OK

00

462

036

71,

383

194

421

02,

102

00

210

5,49

0

OR

00

1,12

50

706

1,51

13

235

161

146

00

131

404,

058

TN

00

00

100

00

00

00

00

10

TX

82

1,59

60

7,24

52,

551

2287

037

35,

388

223

3916

18,1

35

UT

00

297

022

01,

779

035

268

528

00

112

383,

394

VA

00

510

160

01

01

382

00

02

597

WA

00

170

025

60

215

00

00

229

2

WI

00

100

00

10

60

00

00

17

WV

00

240

420

04

010

69

00

018

5

WY

00

385

035

23,

186

146

917

939

30

061

549

96,

079

To

tal

104

6,69

123

712

,927

28,2

5521

06,

871

3,65

213

,275

3518

01,

691

1,68

675

,724

* Spo

t =

Usi

ng s

pot

light

s to

loca

te a

nd s

hoot

an

anim

al† C

all =

Usi

ng p

reda

tor

calls

to

lure

and

sho

ot a

n an

imal

‡ LPC

= L

ives

tock

Pro

tect

ion

Col

lar

usin

g C

ompo

und

1080

/Sod

ium

Flu

oroa

ceta

te

ST

AT

ET

RA

PP

ING

SH

OO

TIN

GP

OIS

ON

ING

OT

HE

RT

OT

AL

Leg

Nec

kA

eria

lC

age

Kill

Legh

old

Snar

eSn

are

Gun

ning

Spot

*C

all†

Shot

‡M

-44

LPC

Oth

erD

enni

ngO

ther

Because sheep are small and relatively defenseless,sheep losses to native carnivores are significantly higherthan losses of cattle. NASS reports that 7.03 millionsheep are produced in the U.S., and of these, 273,000lambs and sheep were lost to predators in 1999 (60.7%of this total was attributable to coyotes).41 In sum,coyotes accounted for the loss of 3.9% of the sheep/lamb population nationwide in 1999; the vast majorityof these losses were lambs.42 Predators caused 30% ofall losses, while weather, disease, and other causescomprised 70%. In other words, significantly moresheep/lambs are lost to causes other than coyotes andother predators.43 Moreover, ranchers are allowed toreport their losses to the federal government withoutverification; thus these figures may be overstated.Predators are frequently blamed for livestock lossesthat actually result from disease, weather, etc.Therefore, the NASS statistics should be viewed with acertain degree of skepticism. Losses, however, can besignificant for affected sheep ranchers. Factorsinfluencing predation rates include habitat type,availability of the coyote’s natural prey, livestockbreeds, and the animal husbandry methods employed(or not employed) on the ranch.

ECONOMICSOF LIVESTOCK PROTECTION PROGRAMSThe American livestock industry traditionally has

externalized the costs of managing conflicts withwildlife by demanding federally-sponsored control ofpredators. Agricultural interests argue that sincewildlife falls under the public trust, the public should payfor damage to their operations. As a result, althoughthey are the primary beneficiaries of Wildlife Servicespredator control operations, livestock producers in the17 western states directly pay less than 1% of its totalcosts. Even when indirect payments are included, suchas those made to livestock organizations and countygovernments (typically from a “head” tax on livestock),livestock producers pay less than 27% of the program’stotal costs. Federal taxpayers generally pay for nearlyhalf of the program, with state taxpayers picking up theremaining 25%.44 Many ranchers benefiting fromgovernment predator control programs graze livestockon public land, where two-thirds of its “livestockprotection” money is spent.

The annual cost of the Wildlife Services “livestockprotection” program is approximately $15–$20million.45 As of 1994, for approximately every dollar oflivestock lost to predators, three dollars were spent onpredator control.46 Considering both state and localcontributions, it generally costs Wildlife Services morethan $100 to kill a single coyote, with costs sometimesexceeding $2,000 per animal.47

Until 1994, there had been virtually no

comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the value ofcoyote control programs, despite their reliance onpublic funds and resources.48 Then the ThoreauInstitute released an economic audit of the USDA’sAnimal Damage Control Program (ADC), which in partfound that:• ADC’s livestock-protection mission has apparently

failed. In general, states with active ADC livestockprograms experienced higher predator losses thanstates with minimal or no livestock programs. Thestarkest contrast: Farmers in Kansas who have nofederal ADC livestock program suffer significantlylower predation rates than farmers in neighboringNebraska and Oklahoma, each of which spendshundreds of thousands of dollars to kill thousands ofpredators each year.

• ADC’s livestock protection program createsperverse incentives for ranchers to use submarginalland, overgraze public land, and rely on taxpayersrather than their own actions to protect their herds.

• Although ADC has expanded its scope of activities,western livestock protection, which mainly meanskilling coyotes, still accounts for most (53%) of itstotal operational budget.49

The report concluded that there was “little legal oreconomic justification for continuing a federal animaldamage control program. Few benefit from such aprogram and those who do ought to pay for theprogram themselves. In any case the federalgovernment should not be involved in what areessentially state and local problems.”50

Ultimately, the current animal damage controlprogram is maintained by creating incentives forranchers to rely on taxpayer-funded assistance, to useland unsuitable for livestock, to overgraze public land,and to over-report losses from predation by coyotesand other predators. It appears that, despite publicrelations efforts to the contrary, the federal animaldamage control program does not promote the long-term resolution of conflicts, but rather perpetuates anendless cycle of conflict and killing, subsidized bytaxpayers.

LETHAL METHODS USED TO ADDRESSCONFLICTS WITH LIVESTOCK

Today, Wildlife Services employs a variety of lethalmethods to kill coyotes and other native carnivores,including such techniques as poisons, steel-jaw legholdtraps, neck and leg snares, denning, hounding with dogs,shooting, and aerial gunning. In 2003, 75,724 coyoteswere reported killed by Wildlife Services, mostly in thewestern states (Table 1). This number should beconsidered only a minimum, since as late as 1990,Wildlife Services agents were reportedly pressured ona regular basis to underestimate the number of animals


they killed and to disregard non-target kills.51

Aerial GunningThe use of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to

hunt coyote, wolves, foxes, badgers, ravens, and otherspecies from the air began in the early 1920s.52

Primarily employed as a preemptive controlmeasure, aerial gunning operations are designed toreduce populations of coyotes and other predators inareas where livestock are to be grazed. AlthoughWildlife Services has argued that aerial hunting isselective for coyotes who prey on livestock,53 one studyreferenced in support of this position found that onlysix of the eleven coyotes shot from a helicopter hadrecently attacked or fed on sheep.54 Moreover, WildlifeServices’ former Colorado State Director (currentlyCalifornia State Director) admitted to the RockyMountain News in April 2000 that “we do the best jobwe can targeting coyotes [with aerial gunning] that areguilty of predation. But the only way I can guarantee Ihave the right one is if it’s glommed onto the neck of thelamb when I shoot it.”55

Given the difficulty in aiming at an animal from amoving aircraft, it is likely that many animals are shotand wounded. However, Wildlife Services has neveranalyzed wounding or crippling rates in its aerialgunning program.

Aerial gunning is also expensive, costing hundreds ofdollars to kill each coyote.56 Moreover, the cost inhuman lives has been high, as the dangerous mix of low-altitude, low-speed flying has resulted in at least 42crashes during the past 20 years, with 39 injuries and 17fatalities.57

TrapsBody gripping traps, including steel-jaw leghold traps

and neck and leg snares and have been widely used incoyote eradication campaigns and culling programsover the years.

Neck snares are generally set as killing devices andconsist of a light wire cable looped through a lockingdevice and are designed to tighten as the animalstruggles. While small victims may become unconsciousfrom strangulation in five to ten minutes, larger animalsmay suffer for hours or days. Trappers use the term“jellyhead” to refer to a neck-snared animal whose headand neck are swollen with thick, bloody lymph fluid.

Animals caught in leghold traps and leg snares cansustain severe injuries, including swelling, lacerations,joint dislocations, fractures, teeth and gum damage, self-mutilation, amputation, and death. Trapped animals aresubject to dehydration, exposure to weather, andpredation by other animals. Young may be orphaned aswell if adults are trapped and killed. Coyotes are usuallybludgeoned, strangled, or shot before they are

removed from the trap.Leghold traps and snares are notoriously

indiscriminate. Non-target species, including lynx, redfox, porcupine, snowshoe hare, birds, and domesticcats and dogs,58 comprise up to three-quarters of theanimals captured in leghold traps.59 Neck snares set forcoyotes frequently capture and kill other wildlife,including mule deer and white-tailed deer.60 After yearsof study, the Federal Provincial Committee on HumaneTrapping in Canada concluded in 1981 that neck snares“do not have the potential to consistently produce aquick death.”61

M-44 (Sodium Cyanide)M-44s are designed to inject a lethal dose of sodium

cyanide into the mouths of coyotes and other canids.These six-inch-long metal devices are driven into theground and baited. When an animal pulls at the bait, aspring-loaded plunger is released and sodium cyanidegranules spew into the mouth and nose of the victim.The force of the spray can project the granules up tofive feet. Depending upon the size of the animal, deathoccurs in a period ranging from 30 seconds toapproximately 5 minutes. Although registered by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to killcoyotes, red and gray foxes, and feral dogs, sodiumcyanide ejectors have killed numerous non-targetspecies. Between 1997 and 2001, M-44s set for coyoteshave killed at least three reintroduced wolves nearYellowstone National Park. Wildlife Services reported20 human injuries from M-44s between 1983 and1993.62

Calling and ShootingIn ground-shooting operations, coyotes are lured

into shooting range using predator calls that simulatethe sound of a distressed animal. Although WildlifeServices claims that this method is selective for coyoteswho prey on livestock, it is almost impossible todetermine whether a specific coyote is the culpritunless the shooter observes the act of predation.

DenningDenning is the killing of coyote pups in their dens,

generally by suffocation with poisonous gas (sodiumnitrate) and/or by clubbing. In his book Waste of theWest, Lynn Jacobs describes denning practices:

There are dozens of forms of denning, all ofthem gruesome. If possible, the denner simplydigs back into the den and strangles the youngbarehanded, shoots them, or kills them with anyimplement at his disposal. In another form, a pieceof barbed wire is shoved into the back of the denand rotated until it catches on a pup or kitten’s


fur. Or a hook may be used.The youngster is then fished out and shot or

its head is bashed in. In another form of denning,the inside of the den is turned into a blazinginferno with a flamethrower, or filled with poisongas. One form involves smoking the animals outwith a smoke bomb or fire and dispatching thechoking, blinded pups or kittens with a club orshovel. In still another, dry brush is packed intothe den and set on fire, and the entrance iscovered with a rock.

In theory, the animals suffocate from thesmoke, but as Dick Randall [a former WildlifeServices/ADC agent] related, “they’d often endup scrambling for the cracks of light at theentrance in desperation. You could hear themyowling when they hit the flames. They burnedalive.”63

Responding to public outcry, U.S. Secretary of theInterior Cecil Andrus banned denning in 1979. Threeyears later the new Secretary, Reagan appointee JamesWatt, lifted the ban.

Compound 1080(Livestock Protection Collars and Baits)

Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) is a highlytoxic, slow-acting poison currently used as a predicidein Livestock Protection Collars (LPCs) that fit aroundthe neck of domestic goats or sheep. The collars aredesigned to rupture when bitten by a predator,releasing the poison. Death from Compound 1080

results from cellular break-down, progressive de-pression of the centralnervous system, and/orcardiac arrest. It can takeup to 10 hours for acoyote to die after ingest-ing Compound 1080. Lessthan 1/20th of an ouncecan kill a 150-poundhuman adult, and eachLPC contains enough poi-son to kill six healthyhuman adults.64 There is

In 2003, the U.S. federal government killed more than 75,000coyotes with traps, poisons, aerial gunning, and other lethal

methods, primarily to protect livestock interests.


© H

SUS

© JA

MES

BA

LOG

Table 2Table 2

no antidote for Compound 1080.Compound 1080 is virtually tasteless and odorless,

making its presence in the environment extremelydifficult to detect. Fewer than 10% of poisoned coyotesare recovered after they die, according to WildlifeServices. Compound 1080 does not deteriorate rapidlyin the environment, and the bodies of poisoned coyotesmay become a secondary hazard to other scavengingwildlife. A significant percentage of LPCs are puncturedby vegetation or barbed wire and lost.65

Developed during World War II as a rodenticide,Compound 1080 became popular for coyote control inthe late 1940s, when biologists discovered it was highlytoxic to canids. Over the next several decades, untoldnumbers of carnivores and other non-target animalsdied when they consumed 1080 pellets dropped fromplanes or inserted into dead sheep as bait. The practiceof baiting sheep carcasses with poison likely selectedagainst carrion-scavenging coyotes and for selectedlive-prey eating coyotes, with the net effect ofencouraging livestock predation. After widespreadmisuse and abuse, and the death of 13 people whoingested the poison, the EPA banned Compound 1080in 1972. EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus calledCompound 1080 “one of the most dangerous [toxins]known to man.”66 In 1985, the livestock industryconvinced President Reagan to sanction Compound1080 for use in LPCs.

A 1995 report by The Texas Center for PolicyStudies titled TDA’s Failed Enforcement for PredatorPoisons: Texas Ranchers Betrayed concluded that theTexas Department of Agriculture had consistentlyfailed to enforce use restrictions for LPCs and did notconduct mandatory inspections of LPC users. EPAreports indicate that more than twice as many collars

have been lost or damaged than were punctured bycoyotes in a number of states. As of 2000, LPCs wereused in six states (Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, Virginia,West Virginia, and Wyoming), but have been banned inCalifornia and Washington by ballot initiatives and inOregon by former Governor John Kitzhaber.

THE EFFECT OF LETHAL CONTROLON COYOTES AND CONFLICTS

More than a century of sustained lethal predatorcontrol has significantly affected the integrity and healthof the native ecosystems of North America. Yet therehas never been a comprehensive evaluation of theenvironmental effects of the federal animal damagecontrol program.

Years of intense persecution have taught coyotes tobe more wary of humans (provided coyotes do notdirectly associate humans with a food source; see“Conflicts with Coyotes at the Urban/WildlandsInterface” on p. 30). Coyotes have learned to springtraps without being caught, to avoid poison baits, tohide their dens from prying human eyes, to prey onlivestock during times of little human activity, and tobecome more active during the night. In essence, ourmanagement of coyotes has selected individuals whoare more successful, intelligent, adaptable, and resilient.

Efforts to reduce and even exterminate coyotepopulations have failed largely because of the coyotes’ability to adapt to changing circumstances and quicklyreplenish their numbers. While lethal control cancreate a short-term reduction of coyotes in an area, thevacuum will eventually be filled by coyotes emigratingfrom surrounding areas (e.g., colonizers), by shifts in theterritories of neighboring packs, and by the increasedreproduction of surviving coyotes.67 The coyote’s

Effects of human-related mortality on coyote family groups.Summarized from Crabtree and Sheldon (1999)

HUMAN-CAUSED AVERAGE AVERAGE GROUP PUPMORTALITY GROUP SIZE ADULT AGE STABILITY BREEDING SURVIVAL

None to light 3–10 3–6 Stable– Alphas breed. 20–60%(0–24%) Fairly stable Few, if any,

betas breed

Moderate 3–9 2 Semi-colonization. Some yearling 50–90%(25–49%) Turnover of alpha females breed.

pairs every 1–3years.

High (>50%) 2 1 Constant Many yearling 70–100%colonization, high females breed.immigration rates. Loose pair bonds

and polygynousbreeding possible.


ability to flourish under intense persecution is likely theresult of evolutionary adaptations developed whilecompeting with other canids, such as the gray wolf.68

Coyote populations that are minimally or notpersecuted are able to maintain a stable pack (or familygroup) structure in which generally only alpha coyotesbreed. Consequently, only about 30% of the females inthe population breed (Table 2).69 Alpha pairs often matefor life and may lead the pack for years. Since, starting atage six, alphas are less likely to reproduce,unpersecuted packs may produce fewer pups thanpersecuted packs, while still maintaining their homerange. The survival of pups can also be quite lowbecause of increased competition for available foodresources in unexploited packs.

Alternately, coyote populations subjected tomoderate or high levels of human persecution arecharacterized by unstable pack structures, semi- toconstant immigration, and a high turnover of alphapairs. This turnover causes a breakdown in the pack

which is the presence of attractive prey (e.g., domesticsheep) in the habitat of an adaptable, opportunisticcarnivore. The large size of livestock and their lack ofanti-predator behavior provide a sizable meal forrelatively little effort, particularly in the case ofdomestic sheep unaccompanied on open range far fromhuman activity, a scenario that occurs on public landsthroughout the West. Further, livestock consume andtrample the vegetation that most of the coyotes’ naturalprey need to survive.72 The depletion of native prey maycause coyotes to prey increasingly on livestock, leadingto the killing of more coyotes in an endless andultimately futile cycle.73

Moreover, indiscriminate lethal control may actuallyincrease predation of livestock. Coyotes may selectlarger prey during the spring and summer to maximizetheir hunting efficiency while rearing their young.74

Because coyote packs in moderate to highly exploitedpopulations have relatively few adults, these packs maycompensate for their reduced numbers by killing largerand more vulnerable prey, such as domestic sheep. Asa result, coyotes may prey on domestic animals such ascalves, sheep, and lambs, 75 despite the increased risk ofcontact with humans.76 Coyotes moving into areascleared by lethal control may also have a greaterpropensity for attacking livestock than undisturbedresident coyotes, especially if they are juvenilesinexperienced in killing native prey. Lethal control can

structure, allowing more yearling and adult females tobreed. As many as 90% of females may breed in thesepopulations.70 In addition, decreased competition forthe available food resources resulting from anthropo-genic caused population reductions means that morefood is available to surviving adult coyotes and increasesthe likelihood that more pups will be born and survivepast their first year.71

The lethal control of coyote populations can lead tothe reduction of livestock losses, but only in the shortterm. The reason for this is that lethal control does notaddress the underlying cause of livestock predation,

“In essence, our management of coyotes has selected individualswho are more successful, intelligent, adaptable, and resilient.”


further disrupt the transmission of hunting techniquesand strategies from adults to pups.77 Coyotes normallyavoid new foods, but if these lessons are lost, theremaining coyotes may be forced to rely on novel preysuch as livestock.

Importantly, lethal techniques often kill animals notinvolved in conflicts. A review of several studiesconcluded that 11–71% of the coyotes, bears andwolves killed to address conflicts were not responsiblefor attacks on livestock or crops.78 This suggests that, inFY 2003, Wildlife Services killed between 8,300 and53,800 coyotes who had not attacked or killedlivestock.

Recent research in NorthernCalifornia affirms that not allcoyotes attack livestock, andthat indiscriminate killing ofcoyotes was not effective inreducing depredation.79 Instead,the alpha pair, and particularlythe alpha male, appears to begenerally responsible for killinglarge prey such as livestock,especially when the coyotes arerearing young.80 (Other re-search suggests that the pres-ence of unprotected lambs maybe a more important factoraffecting predation than theneed to provision pups.)81

As a result, some wildlifemanagers and researchers rec-ommend that lethal efforts befocused on breeding adultcoyotes and their pups prior tothe livestock lambing or calvingseason rather than on allcoyotes in an area.82 While thisapproach would certainly resultin fewer coyotes being killedthan in typical control efforts, itstill requires that coyotes bekilled year after year, thusfocusing resources on managingcoyotes rather on implementingsound animal husbandry prac-tices and other non-lethaltechniques.

In reality, carnivore preda-tion on sheep and calves may beunavoidable when livestock areleft unguarded in large pasturesor on open range.83 Accordingto a 1999 review, carnivoresmay not be able to see any

difference between livestock and natural ungulate preywhen livestock is left “free-ranging and unattended innatural carnivore habitat . . . apart from the sheep beingeasier to kill”; as a result, “most individuals of largecarnivore species will at least occasionally kill accessiblelivestock that they encounter.”84 This suggests that inorder to effectively reduce or prevent coyotepredation on livestock over the long term, one of thefollowing must happen: First, humans could continuallyremove every carnivore living in or venturing into areaswhere livestock are grazed. Or, alternatively, humanscould practice and promote improved livestockhusbandry.

A review of several studies concluded that many coyotes killed to address conflictswith livestock were not actually responsible for attacks on livestock.


© M

ICH

AEL

FR

AN

CIS

Alternative Strategiesfor Managing LivestockConflicts with Coyotes

Alternative Strategiesfor Managing LivestockConflicts with Coyotes

and implementing contemporary non-lethal methodscan lead to significant reductions in livestock losses,thereby reducing or eliminating the demand for lethalmethods.

Animal husbandry practices with a long history ofsuccessful use include livestock guard dogs, confininglivestock at night and during the lambing season,employing herders to manage livestock on the range,removing livestock carcasses from pastures, mixingsheep and cattle, and synchronizing lambing in autumnin order to reduce the risk of overlapping the lambingseason with coyote pup-rearing.

Contemporary tools that have also proven to besuccessful in deterring predation include electricfencing, guard llamas and donkeys, and various scaretactics and frightening devices. The proper implementa-tion of these methods, especially in combination, cansignificantly reduce, and potentially eliminate, predationby coyotes.

The benefits of non-lethal management techniquesextend beyond their ability to protect domesticlivestock from predators. These techniques allowcoyotes to maintain their important role as keystonepredators, keeping rodents and smaller predatorpopulations in check.

Furthermore, coyotes whose territories overlapgrazing areas may learn that preying on protectedlivestock is less efficient and more difficult than huntingnatural prey. These “educated” coyotes will keep othercoyotes, who may be more likely to prey on livestock,out of their respective territories, thus reducingpredation on livestock overall. As John Shivik, aresearch wildlife biologist for Wildlife Services, andcolleagues wrote in 2003:

CHANGING PUBLIC ATTITUDESOver the past several decades, the public has

increasingly expressed opposition to lethal predatorcontrol programs and techniques and support for theuse of non-lethal methods in managing conflicts withcarnivores. Studies of public attitudes toward wildlifedamage management and policy have concluded thatthe public largely favors the use of non-lethal methodswhile considering as inhumane those lethal methodsmost often used in predator control programs such asleghold traps, snares, poisons, and aerial shooting.85

Livestock grazing on public land faces growingcriticism because of its severe impact on theenvironment and the large subsidies that it requires. Inan attempt to reduce their ecological impact, a numberof sheep and cattle operations have opted to forego anylethal controls and to sell their products for a premiumprice under the label “predator friendly.” Theseoperations have capitalized on the public’s willingnessto pay more for products that help maintain predatorsin the ecosystem.

Largely as the result of public pressure, WildlifeServices has put considerable research into developingnon-lethal methods, including several of thosediscussed below. Yet a 1995 report by the U.S.government’s General Accounting Office (see p. 12)found that the agency still strongly favored lethal overnon-lethal methods in the field.

LIVESTOCK HUSBANDRY ANDNON-LETHAL TECHNIQUES FOR REDUCING

AND PREVENTING CONFLICTSConducting traditional animal husbandry practices

Alternative Strategies 21

Nonlethal techniques that preserve stabiliza-tion of social and demographic structure maylimit conflicts with humans and have additionalbenefits in management efficiency. That is, theremoval of territorial predators [such ascoyotes] results in a breakdown of territorialdefense and allows access to livestock bypredators that were formerly excluded.Nonlethal methods for managing predationallow continuance of territorial defense andmay have longer-term effects by preventingother predators from intruding into an areacontaining livestock. Furthermore, efficiency ofnonlethal techniques may be greater becausethey can last beyond the year of management.86

Building fences, raising livestock guard dogs, andinstalling motion activated Electronic Guards does taketime and money, but can be cost-effective in the longrun. Adopting a primarily non-lethal approach canreduce conflicts, increase the acceptance of coyotesand other predators, and allows these animals tomaintain their important ecological role.87

The following non-lethal methods have proven to beeffective in reducing predation on livestock. Theapplicability and effectiveness of each technique willvary from operation to operation depending upon avariety of factors, including habitat, topography, type oflivestock, size of operation, climate, etc. Using two ormore methods together, such as fencing and guarddogs, will generally prove more effective than use of anysingle method.

Herders/ShepherdsHistorically, the use of herders or shepherds who

remained with the sheep flock throughout the day andnight greatly reduced predation and the presence ofpredators near livestock.88 This practice declined assheep ranchers came to rely on government-subsidizedlethal predator control programs. Some sheepproducers, however, continue to implement herding orshepherding in their livestock husbandry practicesbecause of the technique’s effectiveness in reducing oreliminating predation. In addition, an increasing numberof farmers and ranchers are implementing community-based shepherding systems in which neighbors taketurns caring for and tending livestock.

ConfinementConfinement is one of the simplest, most effective

ways to reduce predation by coyotes.89 Studies showthat ranchers who keep sheep in corrals day and nighthave significantly fewer losses than those who do not.However depending on the type of operation, it may bemore practical to confine livestock in corrals at night,

when coyotes are most active.90 Thismethod may not be convenient for large,open-range operations, but it may beeconomically beneficial if losses areconcentrated in a specific area. Portablefencing (see below) can work well forprotecting livestock in open-rangeoperations.

FencingProperly constructed and maintained

electric and non-electric predator-prooffencing has been shown to significantlyreduce or prevent predation onlivestock by coyotes,91 thus reducing thedemand for lethal control.92 Fencingoffers several advantages in addition toprotecting livestock, including greatercontrol of grazing and impact onvegetation, eliminating the need forherding, and re-ducing parasiticinfestations byminimizing con-tact with adja-cent herds.93

Usually preda-tor fencing fol-lows one of threegeneral designs:netwire andbarbed wire,electric fences ofvarying heightsand numbers ofstrands, and com-binations of thesedesigns. Well-maintained net-wire fences candeter many coy-otes from enter-ing a pasture andpreying on live-stock. Spacing of the mesh should be less than 6"horizontal by 4" vertical. A buried wire apron that isbent outward beneath the ground or a barbed orelectric wire placed at ground level can deter coyotesfrom digging under the fence. A wire overhang or singleelectric wire at the top of the fence can discourageclimbing by coyotes.

Electric fences require more maintenance thannetwire fencing, but can be more cost-effective.Constructed of smooth, high-tensile wires, electricfences have been built with both alternating charged

A wide variety of animal husbandrypractices can lead to significant

reductions in livestock losses, therebyreducing or eliminating the demand

for lethal control of coyotes andother predators.


wires and grounded wires andwith all charged wires. In testsat the USDA’s U.S. SheepExperiment Station, an elec-tric fence with 13 strandscompletely excluded coyotes.Labor to construct and installan electric fence can be 40–50% less than for conventionalfencing.

Fences can be cost-effec-tive.94 Materials for a kilome-ter of seven-wire electrifiedfence in a straight run (nocorners) costs about $1,740(excluding the cost of theenergizer) while a similarlyconstructed high tensile net-wire fence runs about $2,200.These fences can last over 30years, translating into a costper year of roughly $58 and$73, respectively. Existingnetwire fences can be supple-mented with 1–3 electricalwires outside the fence tolimit coyote access.95

The effectiveness of fenc-ing is influenced by factorssuch as density and behaviorof coyotes, terrain and vegeta-tive conditions, availability ofprey, size of pastures, season

of the year, floods or deep snow, design of the fence,quality of construction, and maintenance.96 The benefitscan be maximized if used in conjunction with guard dogsor llamas. Most importantly, fencing can keep coyotesout of a pasture while keeping guard animals in. Anycoyote that manages to bypass the fence can then bekept away from livestock by the guard animal.

While permanent fencing is an excellent option foruse in small pastures, it is impractical on the vast semi-arid public lands of the West, where high costs make ituntenable for most ranchers. Its impact on movementsof other wildlife species, including mule deer andpronghorn antelope, are also undesirable.97 Fencingshould not be constructed in a manner that blocksmigration corridors or water routes for wildlife. Largeroperations might consider fencing a smaller area inwhich to confine sheep at night or ewes and lambs forthe first month or so after birth. Temporary orportable fencing can be used to keep livestock togetherso that they can be guarded more effectively. Portableelectric fencing is easy to set up and allows herders andguard animals to monitor both livestock and intruders.

Suggested Resource:deCalesta, David S. Building an Electric Antipredator

Fence (PNW 225, 12 pp.). Oregon: Pacific NorthwestExtension, 1983. (On the Internet at: eesc.orst.edu/AgComWebFile/EdMat/PNW225.pdf)

Shed LambingThe practice of lambing, calving, and kidding in sheds

has the benefit of protecting young livestock when theyare most vulnerable from both predation and inclementweather.98 Typically, ewes and lambs (or goats and kids)are confined to corrals next to the lambing shed for aslong as two weeks after birth. In addition to protectinglambs or kids from predation, shed lambing can lead tohigher survival rates because ranchers can care for sickand orphaned baby animals.

Guard DogsDespite only being used in the U.S. since the early

1970s, livestock guard dogs have a long and illustrioushistory of protecting domestic animals in Europe. Inpast decades, the use of dogs has been evaluatedextensively and has proven highly successful in reducingpredation on livestock in many situations.99 Livestockguard dogs in the U.S. are used with small flocks ofsheep (< 300 head) in fenced pastures, as well as withlarge flocks (> 1,000 head) on open range.

User surveys indicate that ranchers using guard dogsare largely pleased with the effectiveness of guard dogsat reducing predation. A ten-year study in thenortheastern U.S. concluded that livestock guard dogsreduced predation on farms and ranches by 60% to 70%or more.100 Livestock producers in Idaho, Oregon,Washington, and Wyoming reported that 90% of theirdogs had reduced or maintained low predation rates.101

Thirty-six ranchers in North Dakota reported thatguard dogs reduced predation on their flocks by 93%.102

A 1986 survey of U.S. and Canadian ranchers andfarmers found that 92% of 399 polled considered theirguard dogs to be effective.103

Colorado ranchers taking part in a 1993 surveyreported that losses of domestic sheep to coyoteswere significantly reduced by the use of guard dogs,with many reporting increased reductions over severalyears of using dogs.104 Guard dogs were rated asexcellent or good by 84% of 160 ranchers polled andestimates provided by 125 of these ranchers indicatedthat their 392 guard dogs saved $891,440 worth ofsheep in 1993. On average, each guard dog in the studysaved $3,610 worth of open-range sheep. These savingswere greater than the expenses associated with thedogs: $240–690 for the purchase of the animal and $350for annual maintenance. (In 2004, the purchase price ofa livestock guard dog ranged from $800 to $1,500.)Ninety-six percent of the surveyed ranchers said they


CH

RIS

TO

PHER

M. P

APO

UC

HIS

would recommend guard dogs to other livestockproducers.

The most popular dog breeds used as guard animalsinclude Akbash, Great Pyrenees, and Komondor. Nodifference in performance among breeds was reportedamong livestock producers using only one breed.105

However, reports from producers using multiplebreeds suggest that Akbash dogs may be the mosteffective in deterring predation in fenced pastures andrangelands.106

Guard dogs’ most important behaviors areattentiveness, trustworthiness, protectiveness,107 andaggressiveness.108 Various factors can limit theeffectiveness of guard dogs, including arid climates,scattered livestock, rough terrain, heavy vegetativecover, abundant carnivores, improper standards ofdog-caring, and poor training.109 It is important to use asufficient number of guard dogs relative to theprevailing conditions. Using multiple dogs will garnerbetter results because they can cover more ground,protect more sheep, and deter more coyotes. One dogcan handle one or two coyotes at a time, but multipledogs can handle an entire pack. Farmers suggest thatproblems with livestock guard dogs are generally thefault of poor training and not with the dogs.110

Points to consider:• Purchase dogs from a reputable breeder who knows

about the dogs he or she sells.• Dogs should start working with livestock between

8–12 weeks of age. However, guard dogs may not

become completely effective until age two or three,so don’t expect puppies to be able to ward offpredators.

• Pups should be placed immediately in the area inwhich they will be working. Do not raise pups in thehome or yard if you want them to stay with sheep.

• Basic obedience training is a necessity.• While guarding is instinctive in certain breeds, be

prepared to teach the dog what you expect of himor her, or to have a qualified individual provideadequate training.

• Use enough dogs for the situation; one or two dogscan protect up to 200 sheep or sheep grazed in fieldssmaller than 200 acres, while up to five dogs areneeded for large operations (1,000 ewes and theirlambs) on open range.

Suggested Resources:— Livestock Guard Dog Association — www.lgd.org— Dog Owners Guide: Livestock Guard Dogs —www.canismajor.com/dog/livestck.html

Guard DonkeysDonkeys can also reduce livestock losses to

coyotes, although there is less scientific evidence oftheir effectiveness compared to guard dogs. Donkeysare easy to care for, do not require special foods, andgenerally remain with pastured sheep.111 Donkeysexhibit an inherent dislike for coyotes and othercanids,112 and will bray, bare their teeth, run and chaseand attempt to bite and kick an intruder.113 Results are

Guard animals, includingspecial dog breeds, llamas,and donkeys, can be veryeffective at reducing or

eliminating livestockpredation by coyotes and

other carnivores.


CA

MIL

LA H

. FO

X/A

PI S

TA

FF

promising: 50% of Texas ranchers participating in asurvey rated donkeys as either good, fair, or excellentguards.114

Points to consider:• Select donkeys of adequate size and conformation.• Only use a jenny or a gelded jack. Intact jacks may kill

livestock.• Donkeys should be given about four to seven weeks

to bond with sheep. Stronger bonds may form ifdonkeys are placed with sheep or goats at an earlyage (3–6 months).

• Raise donkeys away from dogs. Do not use dogs togather sheep or goats in pastures with guarddonkeys.

• Only use one donkey per pasture, as multipledonkeys might spend more time together than withsheep. Do not use donkeys in or adjacent topastures with horses orother donkeys.

• The best results can beexpected in small (600-acre or less) pastureswith no more than 200sheep or goats. Donkeyscannot be expected towork well if sheep orgoats are scattered.

• Jennies in heat may killlambs or kids and mayneed to be temporarilyremoved.

• Do not allow donkeysaccess to feeds containingRumensin or other additives intended only forruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats).

• Do not use donkeys and guard dogs together.• Donkeys are inexpensive and easy to keep. They can

be used with most other carnivore managementmethods and are less likely to stray than dogs.

Guard LlamasLlamas have been successfully used as sheep guards

in North America since the early 1980s. Llamas arenaturally aggressive toward canids, responding to theirpresence with alarm calls, approaching, chasing, pawingand kicking, herding sheep, or by positioning themselvesbetween sheep and canids.115 No training or previousassociation with sheep or goats is required for a llamato be an effective guard animal. Most guard llamasremain continually with the flock and prevent it fromdispersing widely, although some stay separated butnear the flock. Many take complete control of the flockand keep the sheep together, herding them to feed,water or shelter. Llamas can live over 20 years and have

a very low rate of mortality as guards.A survey of 145 ranchers in the western U.S.

concluded that the use of llamas had reduced theaverage loss of ewes and lambs to coyotes from 21% to7%, and 87% of those surveyed rated their llamas aseffective or very effective.116 Eighty-seven reportedaverage annual savings of $1,253 (1983 prices) by usingllamas. Very few of the llamas had been raised withsheep and were not trained to guard them. However,most llamas adjusted to the sheep within a week. In1993, nearly 80% of 145 Iowa sheep producers usingguard llamas reported that they were either “verysatisfied” or “satisfied” with their guard llamas.117 Theauthors concluded that:• Half of guard llama owners reported 100%

reduction in predator losses.• Sheep and lamb losses dropped from an average of

26 head per year (21% of the flock) before usingguard llamas to 8 head peryear (7% of the flock) aftertheir use.• 85% of ranchers say theywould recommend guardllamas to others.• Most introductions re-quire only a few days or lessfor the sheep and llama toadjust to each other.• Llamas are introduced toand pastured with sheepunder a variety of situations,few of which affect thenumber of sheep lost topredators.

• The average ranch uses one gelded male llamapastured with 250 to 300 sheep in 250 to 300 acres.

• Multiple guard llamas are not as effective as onellama.

• Protectiveness toward sheep and easy maintenanceare the two most commonly cited advantages tousing guard llamas.

• Problems encountered include aggressiveness,attempted breeding with ewes, overprotection offlock, and sheep interference with feeding llamas.Overall, guard llamas require no training and

minimal care and can be an effective method forreducing predation.

Suggested Resources:— Mountain Oaks Ranch — 29560 Valley Center Rd.,Valley Center, CA 92082; 760-751-2603 or 1-800-692-4636; [email protected]; www.mor-llama.com— Rocky Mountain Llama and Alpaca Association — JillKnuckles, RMLA Secretary; 2970 A 1/2 Road; GrandJunction, CO 81503; 970-241-4112; www.rmla.com


Autumn LambingAdjusting the lambing or calving time of a rancher’s

animals can be an effective way to limit or eliminatepredation. Livestock losses are typically highest fromlate spring through September, when coyote packsprovide food for young pups. If livestock producerschange their calving or lambing program to autumn,

when coyotes are less likely to be feeding pups, theopportunity and need for coyotes to prey on younglivestock can be significantly reduced.

Disposal of Livestock CarcassesLeaving the carcasses of dead livestock on the range

encourages scavenging and may lead to predation bycoyotes.118 Other carnivores that feed on carcasseslearn that livestock is a source of food and that potentialprey is in the area.119

In winter, coyotes can travel far to obtain food andmay congregate in areas where livestock carrion isavailable. Additionally, carcasses increase the amount offood available to coyotes and may help raise theirdensity.120

Multi-Species StockingRaising sheep and cattle together in “flerds” is an

effective way to deter coyote predation.When coyotes approach such flerds, the cattle often

encircle the more vulnerable sheep, discouragingattacks. Coyotes must balance need against risk, and ifthe threat of injury is high, such as from being kicked orgored by cattle, coyotes often will reconsider preyingon livestock.

Selecting Appropriate LivestockBefore obtaining new livestock, ranchers should

evaluate their grazing habitat and select appropriatebreeds. Certain breeds have specific needs orweaknesses that must be considered in relation tohabitat, terrain, and grazing conditions.

It is well known in the livestock community thatHereford cows tend to leave their calves witha few “sitters” while the majority goes off tofeed or find water. These calves are morevulnerable to predation than Longhorn calves,who travel with, and are protected by, theirmothers.

Frightening DevicesAn assortment of devices designed to

frighten or deter coyotes from attackinglivestock are available. These devices aregenerally effective only when livestock areconfined in small pastures.

Electronic frightening devices, which emithigh bursts of sound and light, are shown todeter coyote predation.121 The USDA-produced “Electronic Guard” device consistsof a blinking strobe light and warbling type sirenthat sounds for seven to ten seconds every sixto seven minutes at night. In one field study, theElectronic Guard reduced sheep predation byabout 60%, with savings of $2,400 per sheepflock.122 Eighty-four percent of ranchers who

participated in the study reported decreased predationof lambs by coyotes.

A new motion-activated device called a MAG(movement activated radio guard), which uses a strobelight and recorded sound effects, has also shownpromise in deterring coyote predation on livestock. Astudy conducted in 2002 found that the MAGsuccessfully prevented a variety of predators fromvisiting livestock carcasses.123 However, the long-termeffectiveness of this device has not yet beenascertained. This device is not yet commerciallyavailable.

Propane gas exploders show some ability totemporarily deter coyotes from preying on domesticlivestock.124 Such devices are easy to operate, portable,and inexpensive (~$200). Field studies on gas explodersfound they deterred predation for 31 days125 to sixweeks.126

While frightening devices maintained at the samelocation may produce only variable, short-livedbenefits,127 altering their placement, varying thefrequency of sound and light bursts and utilizing largernumbers of devices could retard habituation ofcoyotes.128 Because of their intrusive nature, thesedevices are more appropriate in lightly populated

Ranchers need to take responsibility for protecting their livestock fromcarnivores, particularly on the open range, where sheep and cattle are

most vulnerable to predation.


areas.129

Conditioned Taste AversionFew methods are as controversial or disputed as

conditioned taste aversion (CTA). CTA is the processthrough which animals associate the taste of a food withan illness that occurs after consumption. The originalwork on CTA took place during the 1970s and 1980susing lithium chloride, an emetic (a substance thatsimulates vomiting), to condition coyotes to avoidlivestock. Several studies reported that coyotes whoingested baits laced with lithium chloride displayedreduced predation on livestock in the field and on liveprey in pens.130 Four field evaluations of lithium chloridein three widely separated geographic locationsreported a 60% overall reduction in sheep losses tocoyotes.131

Alternately, some researchers argue that CTA isineffective in deterring predation,132 because coyotesmay rely on vision more than other senses whilelocating prey 133 and few may actually ingest baits.134 Still,proponents of CTA have maintained that federally-subsidized research of CTA carried out by the U.S.Department of Agriculture has been seriously flawedand unduly influenced by political agendas. Animalbehaviorist Lowell K. Nicolaus, Ph.D., stated:

With the sole exception of the wildlifemanagement hierarchy in the United States,there is now no serious controversy within thescientific community concerning whether or notCTA exists as a unique and most powerful formof learning, or whether CTA can quickly producelong-term changes in predatory behavior.135

Researchers in other countries continue toinvestigate CTA’s usefulness for reducing livestockpredation.136

Suggested Resource:— www.conditionedtasteaversion.net

Reproductive InterferenceReproductive interference or sterilization as a tool

for controlling wildlife populations is used with white-tailed deer and several other species, and is currentlybeing studied with coyotes.137 Chemical sterilants werethe first form of reproductive interference attemptedwith coyotes, under the premise that suppression ofreproduction would produce fewer coyote pups andreduce predation by decreasing the population.Although initial trials appeared successful in reducingpredation,138 the method was impractical because of theneed for both precise timing in application and aneffective bait delivery system.139

Wildlife Services is also currently studying surgicalsterilization of coyotes for its effectiveness in reducingpredation on livestock. Initial results suggest thatsterilizing breeding coyotes can modify predatorybehavior associated with the rearing of pups, therebyreducing, but not eliminating, livestock losses.140

Although research into sterilization has reported littleor no impact on social and demographic instabilitywithin the coyote population, long-term studies areneeded to determine whether inhibiting thereproductive potential of this keystone predator affectsecosystem dynamics. 141 Moreover, there is more likelyto be substantial opposition from conservationists andanimal rights advocates if such invasive procedures areused on coyotes, when more humane methods ofproven efficacy are available.

Shock CollarsWildlife Services has studied the use of electric

shock collars on coyotes and on reintroduced graywolves to condition carnivores not to prey onlivestock. The collars are placed around the neck of thepredator and are designed to shock animals with asubstantial charge of electricity when they approachlivestock wearing a transmitter. In theory, shockedanimals would develop a long-term aversion tolivestock. In one study, shock collars deterred coyotesfrom predating on livestock,142 but a similar experimentwith gray wolves failed.143 The technical and logisticaldifficulties inherent in these devices makes themimpractical for most ranching or farming operations.144

CREATING A RURAL COYOTECOEXISTENCE PROGRAM

Management of coyotes in the U.S. is traditionallyimplemented from the top down. The federalgovernment carries out predator control programs atthe state and local levels through cooperativeagreements with local governments. Typically, countiesthat contract with Wildlife Services receive federalmatching funds that help pay for salaries and equipmentfor trappers. The matching federal funds provideincentives for counties to contract with WildlifeServices.

Yet efforts to resolve human-carnivore conflictsfrom the bottom up, at the community level, have agreater potential for creating long-lasting results withbroad public support. For example, community-basedefforts to conserve cheetahs, lions, and tigers in Africaand snow leopards in Asia provide guidance for thesuccessful resolution of conflicts with carnivores.

Public opposition to lethal control has led to greaterdemand for humane, socially acceptable, andecologically sound methods for handling human-wildlifeconflicts. Thus, collaboration among local government


agencies, wildlife and conservation organizations,animal protection groups, various affected constituents,and local communities is essential to the long-termsuccess of any wildlife conflict mitigation program. Suchcollaborative efforts ensure that agencies, stakehold-ers, and the public are held accountable for theiractions, and that animal welfare and ecological integrityare integral components of these efforts.

In the past several years, the creation of acommunity-based predator management program inCalifornia’s Marin County provides an example ofcollaborative efforts to develop common groundamong a wide array of stakeholders. As of 2004, morethan 30 of the state’s 58 counties contracted withWildlife Services. Despite the enticement of matchingfederal funds, however, at least two counties in thestate have ended their contracts with the agency. Thedecisions to cease contracting with Wildlife Servicesstemmed largely from public objection to the killing ofnative wildlife with public funds.

In 2000, the Marin County Board of Supervisorsvoted to phase out county funding for the WildlifeServices program. In place of subsidized lethal predatorcontrol, county officials implemented the “StrategicPlan for Protection of Livestock and Wildlife,” aninnovative, non-lethal program that has garnerednational attention.

Prior to ending the county’s contract, the MarinCounty Board of Supervisors attempted to reach acompromise with Wildlife Services. In 1999, theSupervisors renewed the county’s contract with theagency but stipulated that neck snares and other lethalmethods could only be used a last resort after non-lethal methods had been tried and proven unsuccessful.In addition, the Supervisors prohibited the killing ofcoyote pups in their dens — a practice known as“denning” (see p. 16).

Much to the surprise of the Supervisors, Marinresidents, and the County Agricultural Commissioner’soffice, Wildlife Services refused to operate under thecounty’s modest guidelines. In a report to the MarinCounty Board of Supervisors, the county agriculturalcommissioner noted, “The USDA has stated that localrestrictions will set an unwanted precedent. They fearother counties may prohibit activities as a result ofaction taken by Marin County.”

As a result, the Marin County Board of Supervisorsdecided it was in the county’s best interest to ceasecontracting with the agency. The decision, however, didnot prevent ranchers from shooting predators on theirown land to protect their livestock.

The “Strategic Plan for Protection of Livestock andWildlife” was developed at the local level by a coalitionof wildlife advocacy organizations, led by the AnimalProtection Institute, in conjunction with ranchers and

the Marin County Agricultural Commissioner. The planredirected the county’s $50,000 annual cost forWildlife Services to assist qualified ranchers inimplementing non-lethal techniques including livestockguard dogs, llamas, improved fencing and lambing sheds,and shepherding. At the request of local ranchers, acounty cost-share indemnification program was addedto the plan to compensate ranchers for verifiedlivestock losses resulting from predation.

The reimbursement amount ranchers are eligible toreceive for implementing non-lethal methods dependson the size of their herd. Ranchers with more than 200head are eligible to receive up to $2,000 (the programmaximum), while ranchers with herds of between 25and 200 head are eligible to receive up to $500 annually.Operations with less than 25 head are not consideredcommercial and therefore are not eligible to participatein the program. Projects eligible for cost-sharereimbursement include any material or propertyimprovements that deter depredation, using methodssuch as fencing, barriers, and lambing sheds. Alsoreimbursable are animal husbandry strategies such asshepherding, penning, guard animals, noisemakers, andany other non-lethal predator protection/mitigationmeasures or animal husbandry.

To be eligible for reimbursement for verifiedlivestock losses, a ranch must have an effective non-lethal program to manage livestock depredation inplace, including at least two non-lethal depredationdeterrents (such as guard dogs and electric fencing).

The County Agricultural Commissioner’s officeconducts an on-site ranch review to document andverify that the ranch qualifies. Once a ranch is deemedeligible for indemnification, the rancher can submitclaims for losses. Claims are reimbursed at the marketvalue of the loss. A County Inspector or the LivestockAdvisor may make an on-site verification of the ranchand recommend ways to further deter depredation.

Marin County’s non-lethal livestock and wildlifeprotection program offers a model that is effective,cost-efficient, and ecologically sound. The animalhusbandry techniques that are supported andpromoted through this community-based programallow native carnivores to remain on the land, thusensuring their important role as keystone predators.


The Marin County non-lethallivestock and wildlife

protection program supportshumane solutions to conflictsand allows coyotes to remain

on the land, thus ensuringtheir important role as

keystone predators.


CA

MIL

LA H

. FO

X/A

PI S

TA

FF

© JI

M R

OBE

RT

SON

Conflicts with Coyotes at theUrban/Wildlands Interface

Conflicts with Coyotes at theUrban/Wildlands Interface

OVERVIEWInteractions between humans and coyotes have

become more commonplace in the expanding cities andsuburbs of the U.S. and Canada. In 1999, a coyote waseven observed roaming New York City’s Central Park.While coyotes appear content to share habitat withhumans, some people show little patience for coyotesin their neighborhoods and prefer that coyotes stay innational parks or other public lands. Many people whomove to the outskirts of urban areas seem to forgetthat with wild land comes wildlife.

Humanized landscapes have actually worked to thecoyote’s advantage. The suburban patchwork ofwooded and open areas offers an abundance of “edge”habitat, which the coyote is adept at exploiting. Here,coyotes and other wild animals find plentiful sources offood, water, and shelter. Unsecured garbage, pet food,free-roaming cats and small dogs, rodents, fruit trees,and koi ponds all attract coyotes, who can quickly adaptto the human-modified environment. This high densityof food sources allows coyotes to fulfill their nutritionalrequirements within a much smaller area than in theirnatural habitat, thus increasing their overall populationlevel per unit of land area.

With increased coyote activity in urbanized areascome increased numbers of interactions with people.The vast majority of these encounters are merelysightings. Most people are unaware that there arecoyotes in their midst, as coyotes generally tend tokeep a low profile and avoid humans. Coyotes may,however, prey on cats and small dogs, since thesecompanion animals are similar in size to their naturalprey. Yet often communities assume that a coyote thathas killed neighborhood cats or dogs will work its wayup to children. In some instances, particularly where

coyotes have been fed, or where interaction withcompanion dogs has been encouraged, coyotes willbecome diurnal and quite bold, showing little fear ofpeople.

Although very rare, attacks on people haveoccurred, primarily when coyotes begin to directlyassociate people with food. There is only one knownhuman fatality from a coyote attack in U.S. history. In1981, a coyote killed a three-year-old girl in the LosAngeles suburb of Glendale, California. Tragically, thegirl’s family and neighbors had been purposely feedingcoyotes in their neighborhood, which led the coyotesto associate humans with food. Public panic promptedcity and state officials to conduct a widespread trappingeffort that resultedin the killing ofdozens of coyotes.Afterward, Glendalecity officials initiatedan extensive publiceducation programto head off futureincidents. In addi-tion, recognizing theneed to decreasehabituation of coy-otes to human foodsources, in 1981 theGlendale City Coun-cil passed an ordi-nance prohibitingthe feeding of ani-mals out of doorsafter 10 PM. Ac-cording to the Glen-


dale Police Department, however, not one citation hasever been issued by the city, even though it is commonknowledge that people continue to feed coyotes andother animals, day and night.

The Glendale incident could likely have beenavoided if people were aware of the possibleconsequences of their actions and refrained fromhabituating coyotes. Solutions will only be found whenindividuals, communities, and local and stategovernments change their own behavior to head offcoyote incidents. A 10-year review of human-coyoteconflicts in California conducted in 1998 concluded:

Human-caused changes in the environment,coupled with changes in human behaviortoward coyotes, may result in the develop-ment of serious human-coyote conflicts…Thegeneral public’s lack of concern and awarenessis a serious problem and is the real root ofcoyote-human conflicts.145

While most people welcome the opportunity to seea wild coyote, others respond to the presence of a wildpredator in their midst with fear and panic. Such fearsare often bolstered by alarmist media stories. In fact,coyotes are far less of a threat than the dog next door:Domestic pet dogs kill an average of about 20 peopleper year. Yet, most often, it is those who want coyotesout of their communities who are the most vocal, andthus the communities’ initial response may be knee-jerkand short-sighted.

Although lethal approaches allow officials to tell thepublic that they are “doing something” about thesituation, the effectiveness of these programs inreducing conflicts is short-lived at best. The reasons forthis are largely attributable to the well-documentedability of coyote populations to rebound after heavylethal control efforts. In addition, because publicopposition to lethal control is increasing, particularly inurbanized landscapes, many wildlife managers andpublic officials are beginning to realize that broad-scale

killing efforts may create an undesirablepublic relations nightmare, especially if themethods employed are viewed as non-selective and cruel.

COYOTE BIOLOGY ANDECOLOGY IN URBAN/SUBURBAN

AREASDiet

That coyotes are found in such a widevariety of landscapes is a testament totheir ability to survive and even thrive onwhatever food is available. One studyfound that coyotes living in the Chicagometropolitan area rarely exploit garbageor other human-related food.146 Smallrodents (mice and voles), rabbits, and fruitwere among the most common foodsources. This can be a benefit tocommunities; coyotes help keep suchspecies’ populations in balance, offeringfree “pest” control services to farmersand suburban neighborhoods. Studies insouthern California found that coyoteshelp regulate populations of smaller tomid-sized predators, known asmesocarnivores, who prey extensively onscrub nesting bird species (see “The Roleof Coyotes in Ecosystems” on p. 9). Thus,

in addition to rodent control services, coyotes can helpmaintain healthy ecosystems and avian diversity bykeeping bird-eating predators in check.

Coyotes in Chicago were also found to beconsuming road-killed deer and preying on young fawns

Conflicts with Coyotes 31

As human encroachment into wild spaces increases, so doencounters between people and coyotes.

© M

ICH

AEL

FR

AN

CIS

born in the spring. Dr. Matt Gompper, whohas studied coyotes in the Northeast,speculates that coyotes may help keepincreasing white-tailed deer populations incheck in urbanized areas and that thepresence of coyotes “represents to wildlifemanagers a possible opportunity in someareas to reduce the need for controversialand expensive management decisions.”147

BehaviorTo date, few studies have documented

the dynamics of coyote populations inurban and suburban areas. Those studiesthat have been conducted have shed somelight on how coyotes are able to adapt todensely populated human settlements.

Research has shown that coyotes living in urbanizedareas tend to adjust behaviorally to habitatfragmentation and human activities.148 This means thatcoyotes try to avoid human activities by hunting moreat night and at dawn and dusk (although seeing coyotesin the day should not be cause for alarm as this, too, isperfectly normal behavior). Urban coyotes may favorresidential habitats over commercial and vacant areasbecause of the diversity of vegetation, abundance ofprey, and availability of cover in residentialneighborhoods.149

Coyotes generally live as solitary individuals or inpairs in urbanized areas, but research has shown thatcoyotes may also live in packs, especially if sufficientopen space or natural areas are available that allow forless interaction with humans. Small family groups arecommon, and usually a pair with their most recentoffspring accompanied by yearlings that have yet tostrike out and find their own territories.

Food resources in urban and suburban areas mayexceed those in the wild, allowing more coyotes tosurvive in relatively smaller areas. A study of coyotes inthe Los Angeles found coyote home ranges to be assmall as 0.5 square kilometers, compared to roughly 10square kilometers in the wild.150

One extensive, long-term study of coyotes in theChicago metropolitan area determined that most, if notall, large patches of habitat in the area are occupied bygroups of coyotes that form packs typical of ruralcoyotes. The researchers found a number of coyotepacks living successfully in a relatively small forestpreserve (8 square miles) just outside Chicago O’HareInternational Airport.151 Although the Busse Woodspreserve is surrounded by developments and roads, thecoyotes were thriving and successfully using thefragmented communities surrounding the airport.

The home ranges of these Chicago coyote packsranged from 2 to 9 square miles, with roads or

sidewalks often determining boundaries of territoriesin urbanized areas.152 The study found the packs tendedto focus their activities in scattered, small patches ofhabitat, such as wetlands in city parks, golf courses,areas around retention ponds, and buffers betweensubdivisions and highways. To get from one patch toanother, members of the pack must pass throughneighborhoods, downtown areas, and use sidewalksand bridges, and often do so under the cover of night.153

Living apart from established coyote packs, solitarycoyotes — also called transients or nomads — in urbanareas use much larger areas than do packs.154 Oneyearling female coyote radio-collared in the BusseWoods preserve had a 25-square-mile home range thatcovered at least five municipalities and consisted ofheavily developed areas and busy roads. Like otherstudied urban coyotes, this yearling female regularlytraversed large interstates, shopping malls, and parking


lots, as well as small and large patches of natural habitat.While some coyotes are savvy enough to survive themyriad dangers imposed by urbanization, mortalityfrom automobile collisions is high and may account forup to 50% of coyote deaths in urbanized areas.155

Since one coyote can make eleven differentvocalizations, the howling of a few is often mistaken forthat of many, particularly during mating season, fromDecember through February. It is no surprise thatthere are often more reports of coyotes during thistime at the urban wildlife interface. In addition, whenpups are born, generally in April or May, the parentsmay become more mobile (in search of food toprovision their young) and more aggressive towardpeople and dogs when defending their dens.

The results of these existing studies, along withfurther research into the behavior of coyotes inurbanized areas, have implications for communityplanning, transportation, development, and conserva-tion/management efforts. Some of the key findings ofDr. Stanley Gehrt’s urban coyote research in theChicago metropolitan area bear repeating:

Two important points emerge from thisaspect of the study: There is much coexistence

between people and coyotes occurring everyday (yet coyotes only make the papers when aconflict occurs); and coyotes are using nearlyevery part of the metropolitan landscape, eitheras packs or solitary individuals.156

First, if problem coyotes are removed theyare likely to be replaced by solitary coyotesfloating across the landscape, regardless ofwhere the site is located. We have observedresident coyotes lost to mortality replaced bynew coyotes within a few weeks. Thus is itimportant to determine why problemsoccurred, particularly if wildlife feeding is goingon, and address these prior to removal.Otherwise, removal will only be a temporarysolution.157

Second, if coyotes are removed that are notreally causing problems, such as in a generalpopulation reduction, they will be replaced withnew coyotes that may, or may not, have a fear ofpeople. Thus indiscriminate removal mayexacerbate a conflict, if coyotes that have ahealthy fear of people are replaced by newcoyotes that have little or no fear of people.Therefore, removal should be discouraged ifactual conflicts have not yet occurred, andmanagement should focus on public education.

Over the last few years it has become clearto us that coyotes are now a permanentcomponent of the Chicago Metropolitanlandscape. Their ability to regularly move acrossthe region and hunt prey in small patches ofhabitat, despite the intense development andheavy traffic volumes, is simply nothing short ofamazing. Although conflicts will sometimesoccur, public education and changing publicattitudes may help keep such conflicts to aminimum.

As a top predator, coyotes are performingan important role in the Chicago region.Increasing evidence indicates coyotes assistwith controlling deer and Canada Goosepopulations. This is important information forland managers and educators.158

By increasing our knowledge and understanding ofthis intelligent species, we can help support thedevelopment of effective and humane approaches tohuman-coyote conflicts, and can shape a future in whichhumans and wild animals can live together morepeacefully.

NON-LETHAL TECHNIQUES FORREDUCING AND PREVENTING CONFLICTSLethal control — whether in urbanized or


Coyotes generally live as solitary individuals or in pairs inurbanized areas, but may also live in packs, particularly if

sufficient open space or natural areas allow for lessinteraction with humans.

CA

MIL

LA H

. FO

X/A

PI S

TA

FF

© M

ICH

AEL

FR

AN

CIS

agricultural areas — does not provide a long-termsolution to conflicts with coyotes, for a variety ofreasons. Coyote populations are able to rebound whentheir numbers are depleted and, given adequate habitatand prey, female coyotes can increase their litter sizes.In addition, transient coyotes from surrounding regionsfrequently move in to fill vacant territories. Researchsuggests that to suppress a coyote population in a givenarea over the long term, 70%–90% of the coyoteswould need to be removed continually.159 Wildlifemanagers have found this an untenable bar, and areincreasingly realizing that widespread and indiscrimi-nate lethal control simply does not work with a speciesas adaptable and resilient as the coyote.

So, what is the solution when coyotes become a“nuisance”?

It is critical that community leaders and residentsexamine the source of the problem. Oftentimes,human-coyote conflicts in urbanized areas result frompeople intentionally or unintentionally providingcoyotes (and other wild animals) with food. Intentionalfeeding must be addressed immediately, as this is mostoften the source of aggressive coyote behavior, whichalmost infallibly leads to the destruction of that animal.If local ordinances or bylaws exist that restrict thefeeding of wildlife, law enforcement officials mustprosecute violators. If local ordinances prohibiting the

feeding of wildlife do not exist, then concerned citizensand public officials should work to enact such legislation(see “New Laws” on p. 37).

Solutions can frequently be found in simplealterations of human behavior: securing garbage cans,putting garbage out the morning of scheduled pick-upinstead of the night before, bringing in the dog and catfood — as well as the dogs and cats themselves — atnight, picking up around fruit trees, cleaning up compostpiles, and basically keeping a “clean house” and a cleanneighborhood. Coyotes are smart, and they canbecome habituated easily to human environments.Therefore, in addition to removing coyote attractants,ingenuity is called for when trying to outsmart thisintelligent and adaptable animal. For example, motion-activated sprinkler systems can help keep coyotes andother unwanted wildlife out of gardens, while beatingcoyotes at their ability to adapt to static deterrents.

Time and again, coyotes have proven themselves tobe remarkably resilient animals; it’s little wonder thatthe Navajo called this resourceful species “God’s Dog,”and the Aztec, “coyotyl,” or “trickster.” If we’re smart,we’ll recognize that coyotes have much to offer us, notonly by keeping ecosystems healthy and diverse, but byproviding inspiring examples of ingenuity andadaptability in an ever-changing world.

Keeping Coyotes at a DistanceCoyotes are drawn to urban and

suburban neighborhoods for two rea-sons: human encroachment into thecoyotes’ habitat and the availability offood and water. The following steps canhelp prevent coyotes from beingattracted to your home:• Secure garbage cans by fastening thelid with rope, bungee cords, or chains,


Oftentimes, human-coyote conflicts in urbanizedareas result from people intentionallyor unintentionally providing coyotes(and other wild animals) with food.

© M

ICH

AEL

FR

AN

CIS

and by tying the handle to a stake driven into theground. Place trash bins inside sheds, garages, orother enclosed structures.

• Put garbage at curbside the morning of thescheduled pickup, not the night before.

• When composting, use enclosed bins rather thanexposed piles. Avoid adding dog or cat waste, meat,milk, or eggs, as well as any food containing theseproducts.

• Coyotes are fond of fruit, nuts, and seeds. If you havefruit trees, pick the ripe fruit and keep fallen fruit offthe ground and keep bird feeders from overflowing.

• Vegetable gardens should be protected with heavyduty garden fences or be enclosed by a greenhouse.Check with your local nursery to see what deterr-ent products are available.

• Eliminate artificial water sources and koi ponds.• Outdoor lighting triggered by motion sensors may

keep coyotes from approaching too close to yourhouse at night.

• Motion-activated sprinkler systems can help keepcoyotes and other unwanted wildlife out of gardens.

• Fence your property or yard. The fence must be atleast six feet tall with the bottom extending at leastsix inches below the ground and/or a foot outward.Fences can be made more effective by outwardlyinverting the top of the fence or by using electricfencing along the top and bottom of your fence.Existing fences can be augmented with a CoyoteRoller™ system, which makes it difficult for coyotesand other animals to gain the foothold they need topull themselves up and over the top of anenclosure.160

• Clear away bushes and dense weeds near yourhome, where coyotes may find cover and smallanimals to feed upon.

• Close off crawl spaces under porches, decks, andsheds. Coyotes use such areas for denning andraising young.

• Consider “watering” the perimeter of your yardwith your own urine; while not scientifically studied,some ranchers have reported success at keepingcoyotes at bay from the ranches by “marking” theirown territory.

Note: Trapping and relocating coyotes is notrecommended (and is illegal in some states). Disruptionof family units can cause orphaned juveniles to seek easyprey, such as small dogs and cats. Furthermore, othercoyotes are likely to move into the vacated area.

Keeping Companion Animals SafeCats and small dogs may be seen as prey to the

coyote, while larger dogs may be injured in aconfrontation. To avoid these situations consider the

following:• Install proper fencing (see above).• Keep animals inside at night, as coyotes are primarily

nocturnal.• Do not allow companion animals to roam from

home. API encourages cat guardians to keep theircats indoors where they are safe from cars andother animals.

• Do not leave dog or cat food outside.• Walk your dog on a leash at all times. If your yard

does not have a fence, use a leash while on yourproperty to keep your dog close to you.

• Discuss an appropriate dog or cat vaccinationprogram with your veterinarian.

• Spay or neuter your dogs. Coyotes are attracted to,and can mate with, unspayed or unneutereddomestic dogs. Male coyotes will be attracted tounspayed female dogs or their urine, andunneutered male dogs may be lured away by anovulating female coyote.

Safeguarding Other AnimalsCoyotes are primarily rodent eaters and scavengers.

However, they can harm or kill cats, dogs, chickens,rabbits, goats, sheep, and other animals kept outside.To reduce such risks, take the following precautions:• Keep animals within a fenced area. The fence must

be wire mesh and at least six feet tall with thebottom extending at least six inches below theground and at least six inches outward. Existingfences can be augmented with a Coyote Roller™system.

• Electric fencing with five to nine strands is also veryeffective in deterring coyotes.

• Keep animals closed in a secure shelter at night.• Frightening devices, such as sirens, sensor lights, and

motion-activated sprinkler systems, may help detercoyotes from closely approaching animal housingareas.

• Use guard animals. Llamas, burros, and special guarddogs are proven effective in reducing or eliminatingcoyote predation of pastured animals (see“Livestock Husbandry and Non-lethal Techniquesfor Reducing and Preventing Conflicts” on p. 21).

• Provide rabbits a wire-covered enclosure withfencing buried below the ground. They should havean escape shelter with an opening just small enoughfor the rabbit to enter. Cages are not recommendedbecause rabbits may be attacked through the cage ordie of shock as they frantically try to find cover.

If You Encounter a CoyoteCoyotes are usually wary of humans and avoid

people whenever possible. Aggressive behavior towardpeople is unusual and is most often a result of


habituation due to feeding by humans. If you encountera coyote, remember the following:• Never attempt to “tame” a coyote.• Never feed a coyote.• Do not turn your back on or run from a coyote.• Attempt to leave the area calmly.• If followed by a coyote, make loud noises and make

yourself look big by raising your hands above yourhead, or making a cape of your coat or shirttails andholding it up behind you.

• If this fails, throw clods of earth orsticks, first near the ground next tothe coyote, then, if necessary,toward their body, but never at thehead.

• Always keep yourself between acoyote and small children orcompanion animals.

• If walking on trails frequented bycoyotes, carry a deterrent such as anair horn, whistle, walking stick, orcane.

Note: Coyotes are not considered adisease threat. Outbreaks of rabies incoyotes are rare and are not commonlyimplicated in the transmission of thedisease to humans or domestic animals.In fact, coyotes often reduce the densityof foxes, who are more likely to beinfected with the rabies virus, and thuscan serve as a buffer against the disease.

CREATING AN URBAN COYOTECOEXISTENCE PROGRAM

In 1983, as a result of increasingcoyote conflicts in southern California, the mayor ofSouth Pasadena appointed an advisory committee toproduce a comprehensive report on coyote biology,ecology, and potential strategies for addressingconflicts. The report, titled Investigative Report submittedby South Pasadena Mayor’s Advisory Committee on Coyotes,offers an excellent, comprehensive, and effective short-and long-term strategy for addressing urban coyoteconflicts that, more than 20 years after its publication,still bears repeating:

Our studies have shown that elimination ofthe coyote from the city is not feasible orpermanent; it is also not desirable because of thelost benefit of rodent control…the effort tomanage the environment rather than the coyotethrough a continuous combination of education,enforcement and investigation, has been shownto bring the widest and longest lasting results. For

this purpose, the committee recommends thefollowing methods:1. A highly publicized information campaignexposing the consequences of intentional orunintentional feeding of coyotes, which mightinclude:

– Repeated distribution of a brochureoutlining preventative measures for citizens toeach household, by direct mail; inserts in local

newspapers, water bills, or civic-groupmailings; handouts by scouts, civic, social, orother volunteer groups or police reserveunits; welcome-wagon inclusion for newcom-ers. This could be the County brochure or alocal modification of it.– Establishment of a regular column ormonthly letter in local papers.– Occasional publicity releases to localpapers and on local cable T.V.– Presentations to local civic and social clubs.– Involvement of the schools throughassemblies, classroom presentations; PTAprograms, and home-room teacher coopera-tion; children should be taught properrecognition and treatment of all wildlife.

2. Active and continuous enforcement ofexisting ordinances concerning the sanitarydisposal of garbage and the supervision of pets


© JI

M R

OBE

RT

SON

and children, including periodic intensivecrack-downs, especially in central city areaswhere coyotes tend to be least welcome (see“New Laws” on this page).3. The establishment of the most completepossible resources file of books, articles,reports, accounts of experiences andresearch, made available to city residents atboth City Hall and the public library andcontinually updated and expanded. It shouldalso be made available to other cities andagencies, and their information and experi-ences actively solicited and included.4. Prompt and direct investigation of anyreports of coyote encounters, by telephoneand written questionnaire, then: immediatefollow-up and verification of actual coyoteinvolvement and of the conditions underwhich it occurred; identification of problemsthat might be attracting coyotes andsuggestions for changes or recommendationsfor individual yard fencing if appropriate. As alast resort, elimination of a specific andpositively identified offending animal by asharp-shooter.5. The formation of a committee ororganization of citizens, to deal with coyotesand other animals in the city on a long-termbasis by providing and receiving information, andby being an avenue for residents to handleconcerns about animals before they becomeproblems. It should be open to all interestedresidents, meeting regularly, either as a privategroup or with city affiliation. Such a group mightalso help carry out some of the recommendationsmade by the current Committee withoutcommitting much city money or manpower.6. Cooperation should be set up withneighboring cities to encourage area-wideresponsible management of the environment sothat possible coyote problems can be minimized.A first step should be to send copies of thesefindings to the city authorities of all neighboringcities and to the County.

The report concludes:

The coyote is permanently with us; like humanbeings and automobiles. It [sic] can do much goodand occasional harm. Urban residents can securetheir properties through fences and commonsense safety measures; they can learn of self-protective strategies through schools, neighbor-hood groups, and the print and electronic media.The same cautionary attitudes and methods of


NEW LAWSNEW LAWSOne of the most effective ways to address

coyote and other wildlife conflicts in urban areasis to restrict the intentional feeding of wildlife.People must learn that “a fed coyote is a deadcoyote” and that irresponsible human behavior ismost often the root cause of wildlife conflicts.Some communities have adopted or are creatingnew laws that make it illegal to leave or store anygarbage, food product, pet food, or grain in amanner which would constitute an attractant toany wild animal. Penalties may include fines and arequirement to install coyote-proof garbagecontainers. Please contact API for modelordinance/bylaw language.

communication should apply to those who feelthat the coyote poses a problem or threat; theyneed to avail themselves of the information onhand and strictly adhere to the guidelinesoffered....

The degree of success achieved by these

The goal of any community attempting to address increasingcoyote encounters should be one of educated co-existence that

fosters tolerance and appreciation of the role coyotesplay in healthy ecosystems.


recommendations depends in part on thecooperation of neighboring cities in alsoimplementing such measures.

This committee strongly urges the immediateimplementation of its recommendations to thisend.

The goal of any community that is attempting toaddress increasing coyote encounters should be one ofeducated coexistence that fosters an understanding andappreciation of the role coyotes play in healthyecosystems and the need to keep them wild. As the

South Pasadena report emphasizes, this can only beachieved through proactive and sustained publiceducation and outreach efforts. In addition, collabora-tion among government agencies and communityinvolvement is essential. As Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish & Game Ryan Broddrickemphasized in an August 5, 2004 opinion editorial in theSan Diego Union-Tribune: “The first step is to recognizethat it’s not a coyote problem. It’s a people problem….Every human encounter that ends with a meal is a lessonto the intelligent coyote: Humans equal food.”161

Because of the propensity of coyotes to reoccupyvacant habitat, it is beneficial to maintain stable coyotefamily units that are conditioned to avoid humaninteraction. Resident coyotes will prohibit transientcoyotes, which may not have an aversion to humans,from entering their territories.

While trapping, aerial gunning, and poisoning are theprimary methods used to address coyote conflicts todate, these methods are not humane, selective oreffective. More importantly, indiscriminate killing doesnot place the responsibility for problems where itbelongs — on humans.

The Animal Protection Institute advocates a multi-faceted approach to conflicts that includes identifyingthe source of the problem, treating the source and not

the symptoms, andeducating the pub-lic through consis-tent and persis-tent outreach ef-forts. Our hope isthat this publica-tion will help com-munities, agencies,public officials, andconcerned indi-viduals resolvesuch conflicts withthe many scientifi-cally proven, prac-tical managementtechniques avail-able for coexistingwith coyotes.

ConclusionConclusion

AS HUMAN CIVILIZATION continues toexpand into wildlife habitat, and coyote populationsadapt to our increasing presence, encounters withcoyotes will inevitably continue. As a result,communities will be increasingly called upon to addressconflicts and wildlife managers will face greater publicpressure to use humane, non-lethal methods.

Solutions are not always simple or readily available.However, conflicts can be significantly reduced over thelong term by redirecting the money and resourcesnormally used to kill coyotes and other predatorstoward non-lethal, ecologically sound methods. It mayeven be possible to teach already habituated coyotes toavoid humans by developing aversive conditioningtechniques.

Conclusion 39

NotesNotes


1. Crabtree, R. L., and J. W. Sheldon. (1999). Coyotes and canidcoexistence. In T. W. Clark, et al., (Eds.), Carnivores in Ecosystems: TheYellowstone Experience, (pp. 127–163). New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

2. Parker, G. (1995). Eastern coyote: The story of its success. Halifax: Nimbus.3. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”4. Bekoff, M. (1977). Canis latrans. Mammalian Species, 79, 1–9.5. Bekoff, M. and M. C. Wells. (1986). Social ecology and behavior of

coyotes. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 16, 251–338; Crabtree andSheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”; Gehrt, S. (2004). Chicagocoyotes. Wildlife Control Technology, 11(3), 24–26; Gehrt, S. (2004).Chicago coyotes part II. Wildlife Control Technology, 11(4), 20–21.

6. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”7. Sheldon, J. W. (1992). Wild dogs: The natural history of the nondomestic

Canidae. New York: Academic Press.8. Gese, E. M. (2001). Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: Who, how, where, when, andwhy. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79, 980–987.

9. Ibid.10. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”11. Knowlton, F. F., et al. (1999). Coyote depredation control: An interface

between biology and management. Journal of Range Management, 52,398–412.

12. Crabtree, R. L. (1989). Social, spatial, and demographic characteristics of anunexploited coyote population. Ph.D. diss., University of Idaho, Moscow.

13. Sheldon. Wild dogs.14. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”15. Andelt, W. F. (1978). Behavioral ecology of coyotes in South Texas.

Wildlife Monographs, 94, 1–45; Bowen, W. D. (1978). Social organizationof the coyote in relation to prey size. Ph.D. diss., University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver.

16. Knowlton, F. F. (1972). Preliminary interpretations of coyote populationmechanics with some management implications. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 36, 369–382; Todd, A. W., et al. (1981). Populationecology of coyotes during a fluctuation of snowshoe hares. Journal ofWildlife Management, 45, 629–640; Todd, A. W., and L. B. Keith. (1983).Coyote demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. Journalof Wildlife Management, 47, 394–404; Mills, L. S., and F. F. Knowlton.(1996). Coyote space use in relation to prey abundance. CanadianJournal of Zoology, 69, 1516–1521; Gese, E. M., et al. (1996). Social andnutritional factors influencing the dispersal of resident coyotes. AnimalBehaviour, 52, 1025–1043.

17. Gese, et al. “Social and nutritional factors”; Gese, E. M., et al. (1996).Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): The influence of extrinsicfactors and a dominance hierarchy. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74, 769–783.

18. Knowlton, et al. “Coyote depredation control.”19. Andelt, “Behavioral ecology”; Bekoff and Wells. “Social ecology and

behavior.”; Gese, E. M., et al. (1989). Population dynamics of coyotes insoutheastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management, 53, 174–181;

Gese, et al. “Social and nutritional factors”; Gese, et al. “Foragingecology of coyotes.”

20. Gese, et al. “Social and nutritional factors.”21. Gese, E. M., and S. Grothe. (1995). Analysis of coyote predation on deer

and elk during winter in Yellowstone National park, Wyoming.American Midland Naturalist, 133, 36–43; Gese, et al. “Foraging ecologyof coyotes.”

22. Soulé, M. E., et al. (1988). Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctionsof chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands. Conservation Biology,2, 75–82; Vickery, P. D., et al. (1992). Evidence of incidental nestpredation and its effects on nests of threatened grassland birds. Oikos,63, 1099–1104; Sovada, M. A., A. B. Sargeant, and J. W. Grier. (1995).Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest success.Journal of Wildlife Management, 59, 1–9; Henke, S. E., and F. C. Bryant.(1999). Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community in westernTexas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63, 1066–1081.

23. Crooks, K. R., and M. E. Soulé. (1999). Mesopredator release andavifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature, 400, 563–566.

24. Sovada, et al. “Differential effects.”; Rogers C. M. and M. J. Caro. (1998).Song sparrows, top carnivores and nest predation: A test of themesopredator release hypothesis. Oecologia, 116, 227–233.

25. Henke and Bryant. “Effects of coyote removal.”26. Ibid., 1078–1079.27. Gompper, M. E. (2002).Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and

conservation issues raised by colonization of northeastern NorthAmerica by coyotes. Bioscience, 52(2), 185–190.

28. Ibid.29. Dunlap, R.T. (1988). Saving America’s wildlife. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 51.30. 7 U.S.C. 426.31. Jacobs, L. (1992). Waste of the west: Public lands ranching. Tucson: author.32. Connolly, G. E. (1978). Predator control and coyote populations: A

review of simulation models. In Bekoff, M. (Ed.), Coyotes: Biology,Behavior, and Management (pp. 327–345). New York: Academic Press;Statistics on the number of coyotes killed and the methods used in theU.S. by the USDA Wildlife Services program obtained from the USDAWildlife Services online publication, “Number of Animals Taken andMethods Used by the WS Program” http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/tables; through records obtained through the Freedom of InformationAct, and from Predator Conservation Alliance, “Wildlife ‘Services’? Apresentation and analysis of the USDA Wildlife Services Program’sexpenditures and kill figures for Fiscal Year 1999.” (Bozeman, MT, June2001).

33. Connolly. “Predator control”34. Treves, A. and L. Naughton-Treves. (In press.) Evaluating lethal control

in the management of human-wildlife conflict. In R. Woodroffe, S.Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz. (Eds.), People and Wildlife, Conflict orCoexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35. Edge, R. (1934). The United States Bureau of Destruction andExtermination. Emergency Conservation Committee Pamphlet. Denver:

Notes 41

Denver Public Library, Edge manuscript collection.36. U.S. House of Representatives. (1966). Predatory mammals. Hearings

before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of theCommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 89th Congress, 2nd Session.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

37. Cain, S., et al. (1971). Predator control – 1971. Report to the Council onEnvironmental Quality and the Department of the Interior by the AdvisoryCommittee on Predator Control. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

38. General Accounting Office. (1995). Animal Damage Control Program— Efforts to protect livestock from predators. GAO Report B-261796.

39. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle predator loss. Washington,DC, 1996.

40. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle predator loss. Washington,DC, 2001.

41. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Sheep and goats predator loss.Washington, DC, 2000.

42. Ibid.43. Early, J. O., J. C. Roetherli, and O. R. Brewer. (1974). An economic study

of predation in the Idaho range sheep industry, 1970–71 production cycle(Progress Report No. 182). Moscow, ID: Idaho Agricultural Research,University of Idaho, Moscow.

44. O’Toole, R. (1994). Audit of the USDA Animal Damage ControlProgram. Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants Research Paper Number31.

45. Predator Conservation Alliance. “Wildlife ‘Services’?.”46. O’Toole. “Audit of the USDA.”47. Ibid.48. Harris, S. and G. Saunders. (1993). The control of canid populations.

Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, 65, 441–464.49. O’Toole. “Audit of the USDA.”50. Ibid., 1.51. Jacob. “Waste of the West.”52. Wade, D. A. (1976). The use of aircraft in predator control. Proceedings

of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 7, 154–160.53. Connolly, G. E. (1982). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coyote control

research. Proceedings of the Great Plains Wildlife Damage ControlWorkshop, 5, 132–139; Connolly, G. E., and B. W. O’Gara. (1987).Aerial hunting takes sheep-killing coyotes in western Montana.Proceedings of the Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, 8, 184–188.

54. Connolly and O’Gara. “Aerial hunting.”55. Colleen Smith. The nature of Coyotes: Crafty canines shake off efforts

at reduction. Denver Post, 21 March 1999.56. Wagner, K., and M. Conover. (1999). Effect of preventative coyote

hunting on sheep losses to coyote predation. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 63, 606–612.

57. Information obtained from the National Transportation Safety Boardand the Federal Aviation Administration by Sinapu through theFreedom of Information Act. For further information, see http://www.goagro.org.

58. Onderka, D. K., et al. (1990). Injuries to coyotes and other speciescaused by four models of footholding devices. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18,303–307; Skinner, D. L. and A. W. Todd. (1990). Evaluating efficiency offootholding devices for coyote capture. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18, 166–175.

59. Beasom, S. L. (1974). Selectivity of predator control techniques in southTexas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 38, 837–844.; Berchielli, L. T., andB. F. Tullar. (1980). Comparison of a leg snare with a standard leg–gripping trap. NY Fish and Game Journal, 27, 63–71; Novak, M. (1981).The foot-snare and the leg-hold traps: A comparison. Proceeding of theWorldwide Furbearer Conference, 3,1671–1685.

60. Phillips, R. L. (1996). Evaluation of 3 types of snares for capturingcoyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 107–110.

61. The Federal Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping. (1981).Findings and recommendations. Federal Provincial Wildlife Conference,Canada.

62. Wolff, P. (1995). Waste, fraud & abuse in the U.S. Animal DamageControl Program. A special report for Wildlife Damage Review.

63. Jacobs, “Waste of the West,” 260.64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Registration Eligibility Decision

(RED): Sodium Fluoroacetate. EPA 738-R-025, September 1995.

65. Information obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service in 1998 by the Animal ProtectionInstitute through the Freedom of Information Act.

66. Jacobs, “Waste of the West,” 259.67. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”68. Ibid.69. Ibid.70. Connolly, G. E., and W. M. Longhurst. (1975). The effects of control on

coyote populations: A simulation model. Division Agricultural Science,University of California, Davis, Bulletin 1872.

71. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”72. Ibid.73. Stoddart, L. C., R. E. Griffiths, and F. F. Knowlton. (2001). Coyote

responses to changing jackrabbit abundance affect sheep predation.Journal of Range Management, 54, 15–20.

74. Crabtree and Sheldon. “Coyotes and canid coexistence.”; also see Pyke,G. H., H. R. Pulliam, and E. L. Charnov. (1977). Optimal foraging: Aselective review of theory and tests. Quarterly Review of Biology, 52, 137–154.

75. Till, J. A., and F. F. Knowlton. (1983). Efficacy of denning in alleviatingcoyote depredations upon domestic sheep. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 47, 1018–1025.

76. Crabtree, R. L. Open letter, 4 November 1997.77. Ibid.78. Treves and Naughton-Treves. “Evaluating lethal control.”79. Jaeger, M. M, et al. (2001). Targeting alphas can make coyote control

more effective and socially acceptable. California Agriculture, 55(6), 32–36.

80. Peterson, R. O. (1977). Wolf ecology and prey relationships on IsleRoyale. U.S. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series 11, 1–210;Mech, L. D. (1988). The Arctic wolf: Living with the pack. Stillwater, MN:Voyageur Press; Gese and Grothe. “Analysis of coyote predation”;Sacks, B. N. (1996). Ecology and behavior of coyotes in relation todepredation and control on a California sheep ranch. Master’s thesis,University of California, Berkeley; Sacks, B. N., et al. (1999).Territoriality and breeding status of coyotes relative to sheeppredation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63, 593–605.

81. Scrivner, J. H., et al. (1985). Sheep losses to predators on a Californiarange, 1973–1983. Journal of Range Management, 38, 418–421; Conner,M. M. (1995). Identifying patterns of coyote predation on sheep on a northernCalifornia ranch. Master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

82. See: Sacks, et al. “Territoriality and breeding status.”83. Treves and Naughton-Treves. “Evaluating lethal control.”84. Linnell, J. D. C., et al. (1999). Large carnivores that kill livestock; do

‘problem individuals’ really exist? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 702.85. Reiter, D. K., et al. (1999). Public attitudes toward wildlife damage

management and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27, 746–758.86. Shivik, J. A., A. Treves, and P. Callahan. (2003). Nonlethal techniques for

managing predation: primary and secondary repellents. ConservationBiology, 17, 1541–1537.

87. Shivik, et al. “Nonlethal techniques.”88. Davenport, J. W., et al. (1977). Assessment of sheep losses to coyotes:

A problem to Utah sheepman — concern to Utah researchers. UtahState University, Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep., 7; Tigner, J. R., and G. E. Larson.(1977). Sheep losses on selected ranches in southern Wyoming. Journalof Range Management, 30, 244–252; Nass, R. D., et al. (1984).Circumstances associated with predation rates on sheep and goats.Journal of Range Management, 37, 423–426.

89. Wade, D. A. (1973). An assessment of the coyote problem in the GreatPlains states. Proceedings Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop,1, 5–10; Robel, R. J., et al. (1981). Relationships between husbandrymethods and sheep losses to canine predators. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 45, 894–911.

90. Andelt. “Carnivores.”91. deCalesta, D. S., and M. G. Cropsey. (1978). Field test of a coyote-proof

fence. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 6, 256–259; Gates, N. L., et al. (1978).Development and evaluation of anticoyote electric fencing. Journal ofRange Management, 31, 151–153; Thompson, B. C. (1979). Evaluation ofwire fences for coyote control. Journal of Range Management, 32, 457–461; Dorrance, M. J., and J. Bourne. (1980). An evaluation of anti-coyoteelectric fencing. Journal of Range Management, 33, 385–387; Linhart, S.


B., et al. (1982). Electric fencing reduces coyote predation on pasturedsheep. Journal of Range Management, 35, 276–281; Shelton, M. (1984).The use of conventional and electric fencing to reduce coyotepredation on sheep and goats. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. MP-1556;Shelton, M., and N. L. Gates. (1987). Antipredator fencing. In J. S. Green(Ed.), Protecting Livestock from Coyotes (pp. 30–37). Dubois, ID: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agric. Res. Serv.; Nass, R. D. and J.Threade. (1988). Electric fences for reducing sheep losses to predators.Journal of Range Management, 41, 251–252.

92. Dorrance and Bourne. “An evaluation.”93. Jones, 1938 cited in D. A. Wade. (1982). The use of fences for predator

damage control. Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference, 10, 24–33.94. Dorrance and Bourne. “An evaluation”; Linhart, et al. “Electric fencing.”95. deCalesta, D. S. (1983). Building an electric antipredator fence. Pacific

Northwest Cooperative Extension Bulletin, 225 ; Shelton. “Conventionaland electric fencing.”

96. United States Department of Agriculture. (1994). Animal Damage ControlProgram: Final environmental impact statement. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

97. Howard. “Effects of electric predator-excluding fences.”98. Wade. “An assessment”; Boggess, E. K., et al. (1980). Managing predator

problems: Practices and procedures for preventing and reducinglivestock losses. Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin, C–620, KansasState University.

99. Linhart, S. B., et al. (1979). Komondor guard dogs reduce sheep lossesto coyotes: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Range Management, 32,238–241; Coppinger, R. L., et al. (1983). Introducing livestock guardingdogs to sheep and goat producers. Proceedings of the Eastern WildlifeDamage Control Conference, 1, 129–132; Coppinger, R. L., et al. (1988).A decade of use of livestock guarding dogs. Proceedings of the VertebratePest Council, 13, 209–214; Black, H. L., and J. S. Green. (1985). Navajouse of mixed-breed dogs for management of predators. Journal of RangeManagement, 38, 483–487; Green, J. S., et al. (1984). Livestock guardingdogs for predator control: Costs, benefits, and practicality. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 12, 44–50; Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. (1983). Theuse of three breeds of dog to protect rangeland sheep from predators.Applied Animal Ethology, 11, 141–161; Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff.(1987). Livestock-guarding dogs for predator control. In J. S. Green(Ed.), Protecting Livestock from Coyotes (pp. 62–68). Dubois, ID: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agric. Res. Serv.; Andelt. “Behaviorialecology”; Andelt, W. F. (1992). Effectiveness of livestock guarding dogsfor reducing predation on domestic sheep. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 20,55–62; Andelt, W. F. (1999). Relative effectiveness of guarding dog-breeds to deter predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 27, 706–714.

100. Coppinger, et al. “A decade of use.”101. Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. (1990). ADC guarding dog program

update: A focus on managing dogs. Proceedings of the Vertebrate PestConference, 14, 233–236.

102. Pfeifer, W. K., and M. W. Goos. (1982). Guard dogs and gas explodersas coyote depredation control tools in North Dakota. Proceedings of theVertebrate Pest Conference, 10, 55–61.

103. Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. (1988). Breed comparisons andcharacteristics of use of livestock guarding dogs. Journal of RangeManagement, 41, 249–251.

104. Andelt, W. F., and S. N. Hopper. (2000). Livestock guarding dogsreduce predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. Journal of RangeManagement, 53, 259–267.

105. Green and Woodruff. “Breed comparisons”; Andelt. “Relativeeffectiveness.”

106. Andelt. “Relative effectiveness.”107. Coppinger, et al. “Introducing livestock guarding dogs”; Andelt.

“Relative effectiveness.”108. McGrew, J. C., and C. S. Blakesley. (1982). How Komondor dogs

reduce sheep losses to coyotes. Journal of Range Management, 35, 693–696; Andelt. “Relative effectiveness.”

109. Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. (1983). The use of Eurasian dogs toprotect sheep from carnivores in North America: A summary ofresearch at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. Proceedings EasternWildlife Damage Conference, 1, 119–124.

110. Duckworth, B. “Guard dogs on patrol.” The Western Producer (January

13, 2000).111. Andelt, W. F. “Carnivores.” In P. R. Krausman (Ed.), Rangeland Wildlife

(pp.133–155). Denver: Society of Range Management.112. Ibid.113. Green, J. S. (1989). Donkeys for predation control. Proceedings of the

Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference, 4, 83–86.114. Walton, M. T., and C. A. Feild. (1989). Use of donkeys to guard sheep

and goats in Texas. Proceedings of the Eastern Wildlife Damage ControlConference, 4, 87–94.

115. Andelt, W. F. (1999). Livestock Guard Dogs, Llamas and Donkeys. ColoradoState University Cooperative Extension No. 1.218. Retrieved on the WorldWide Web: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/livestk/01218.html

116. Franklin, W. L., and K. J. Powell. (1983). Guard llamas. Iowa StateUniversity Extension Bulletin.

117. Ibid.118. Lehner, P. N. (1976). Coyote behavior: Implications for management.

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 4, 120–126.119. Ibid.; Fritts, S. H. (1982). Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Res. Publication145.

120. Todd, A. W., and L. B. Keith. (1976). Responses of coyotes to winterreductions in agricultural carrion. Alberta Wildlife Technology Bulletin, 5.

121. Linhart, S. B., et al. (1984). Efficacy of light and sound stimuli forreducing coyote predation upon pastured sheep. Protection Ecology, 6,75–84.

122. Linhart, S. B., et al. (1992). Electronic frightening devices for reducingcoyote predation on domestic sheep: Efficacy under range conditionsand operational use. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 15,386–392.

123. Shivik, et al. “Nonlethal techniques.”124. Andelt. “Carnivores.”125. Pfeiffer and Goos. “Guard dogs and gas exploders.”126. Andelt. “Carnivores.”127. Bomford, M., and P. H. O’Brien. (1990). Sonic deterrents in animal

damage control: A review of device tests and effectiveness. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 18, 411–422.

128. Linhart, et al. “Electronic frightening devices.”129. Knowlton, et al. “Coyote depredation control.”130. Gustavson, C. R., et al. (1974). Coyote predation control by aversive

conditioning. Science, 184, 581–583; Gustavson, C. R., et al. (1982). A 3-year evaluation of taste aversion coyote control in Saskatchewan.Journal of Range Management, 35, 57–59; Ellins, S. R., and S. M. Catalano.(1980). Field application of the conditioned taste aversion paradigm tothe control of coyote predation on sheep and turkeys. Behavioral andNeural Biology, 29, 532–536.

131. Gustavson, C. R., et al. (1976). Prey-lithium aversions I: Coyotes andwolves. Behavioral Biology, 17, 61–72; Gustavson, C. R., et al. Tasteaversion control of coyote predation in Washington, California, andSaskatchewan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the WesternPsychological Association, Seattle, April 1977; Ellins, S. R., et al. (1977).Conditioned taste aversion: A field application to coyote predation onsheep. Behavior Biology, 20, 91–95; Jelinski, D. E., et al. (1983). Coyotepredation on sheep, and control by aversive conditioning inSaskatchewan. Journal of Range Management, 36, 16–19.

132. Conover, M. R., et al. (1977). An experimental evaluation of aversiveconditioning for controlling coyote predation. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 41, 775–779; Burns, R. J., and G. E. Connolly. (1980).Lithium chloride bait aversion did not influence prey killing by coyotes.Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 13, 200–204; Burns, R. J.(1980). Evaluation of conditioned predation aversion for controllingcoyote predation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 44, 938–942; Bourne,J., and M. J. Dorrance. (1982). A field test of lithium chloride aversionto reduce coyote predation on domestic sheep. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 46, 235–239; Burns, R. J. (1983). Microencapsulatedlithium chloride bait aversion did not stop coyote predation on sheep.Journal of Wildlife Management, 47, 1010–1017.

133. Wells, M. C., and P. N. Lehner. (1978). The relative importance of thedistance senses in coyote predatory behavior. Animal Behavior, 26, 251–258.

134. Linhart, S. B., et al. (1968). Field evaluation of an antifertility agent,stilbestrol, for inhibiting coyote reproduction. Transactions of the North

Notes 43

American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 33, 316–327.135. http://www.conditionedtasteaversion.net136. Gill, E. L., et al. (1999). A comparative assessment of potential

conditioned taste aversion agents for vertebrate management. AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science, 67, 229–240; Cowan, D. P., et al. (2000).Reducing predation through conditioned taste aversion. In L. M.Gosling and W. T. Sotherland (Eds.), Behaviour and conservation (pp.281–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

137. Miller, L. A. (1995). Immunocontraception as a tool for controllingreproduction in coyotes. In D. Rollins (Ed.), Proceedings of theSymposium on Coyotes in the Southwest: A Compendium of our Knowledge(pp.172–176). Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.;DeLiberto, T. J. (1998). Fertility control in coyotes: Is it a potentialmanagement tool? Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 18, 144–149.

138. Balser, D. S. (1964). Management of predator populations withantifertility agents. Journal of Wildlife Management, 28, 352–358; Linhart,et al. “Field evaluation.”

139. Turner, J. W. and J. F. Kirkpatrick. (1991). New developments in feralhorse contraception and their potential application to wildlife. WildlifeSociety Bulletin, 19, 350–359.

140. Bromley, C., and E. M. Gese. (2001). Sterilization as a method ofreducing coyote predation on domestic sheep. Journal of WildlifeManagement, 65, 510–519.

141. Bromley, C., and E. M. Gese. (2001). Effects of sterilization on territoryfidelity and maintenance, pair bonds, and survival rates of free-rangingcoyotes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79, 386–392.

142. Andelt, W. F., et al. (1999). Coyote predation on domestic sheepdeterred with electronic dog-training collar. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27,12–18.

143. Shivik, J., Wildlife Services. Personal communication.

144. Shargo, E. S. (1988). Home range, movements, and activity patterns ofcoyotes (Canis latrans) in Los Angeles suburbs. Ph.D. diss., University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

145. Shivik, et al. “Nonlethal techniques.”146. Gehrt. “Chicago coyotes.”147. Gompper. “Top carnivores.”148. Tigas, A. L., D. H. Van Vuren, and R. M. Sauvajot. (2002). Behavioral

responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation andcorridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation, 108(3), 299–306.

149. Grinder, M. I., and P. R. Krausman. (1998). Ecology and management ofcoyotes in Tucson, Arizona. Proceedings of the 18th Vertebrate PestConference, 293–298.

150. Charge. Home range.151. Gehrt. “Chicago coyotes.”152. Gehrt. “Chicago coyotes part II.”153. Ibid.154. Quinn, T. (1991). Distribution and habitat associations of coyotes in

Seattle, Washington. Wildlife Conservation. Metropolitan EnvironmentsSymposium Series, 2, 48–51; Grinder and Krausman. “Ecology andmanagement.”; Gerht. “Chicago Coyotes Part II.”

155. Tigas, et al. “Behavioral responses.”156. Gehrt. “Chicago coyotes part II.”157. Ibid.158. Gehrt. “Chicago coyotes.”159. Connolly. “Predator control and coyote populations.”160. For information see http://www.coyoteroller.com. API has not

endorsed this product.161. Broddrick, R. How not to have to kill coyotes: Keep them wild. The San

Diego Union-Tribune, 5 August 2004.

© M

ICH

AEL

FR

AN

CIS


Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

Stat

e C

lass

ifica

tion

and

Man

agem

ent

of C

oyot

es

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

Thi

s su

mm

ary

is in

tend

ed t

o be

an

over

view

of t

he U

.S. s

tate

law

s pe

rtai

ning

to

how

coy

otes

are

cla

ssifi

ed, h

unte

d, t

rapp

ed, a

nd k

illed

by

a la

ndow

ner

on h

is o

r he

r pr

oper

ty. T

he s

umm

ary

is b

ased

on

rese

arch

of t

he v

ario

us s

tate

s’ s

tatu

tes

and

impl

emen

ting

regu

latio

ns. O

nly

whe

n no

sta

te s

tatu

te o

r re

gula

tion

was

foun

d w

ere

the

vari

ous

stat

es’ w

ildlif

e ag

ency

web

site

s re

view

ed. P

leas

e no

te t

hat

othe

r m

etho

ds o

fhu

ntin

g an

d/or

tra

ppin

g of

coy

otes

may

be

allo

wed

; wha

t is

incl

uded

in t

his

sum

mar

y is

wha

t w

as s

tate

d w

ithin

the

sta

tute

s an

d im

plem

entin

g re

gula

tions

, as

wel

l as

in t

he s

tate

wild

life

agen

cies

’ web

site

s, w

here

appl

icab

le. L

aws

rela

ted

to s

peci

fic r

estr

ictio

ns fo

r Wild

life

Man

agem

ent A

reas

or

Nui

sanc

e A

nim

al C

ontr

ol O

pera

tors

wer

e no

t in

clud

ed in

thi

s su

mm

ary.

AK

Furb

eare

r.(A

LASK

A A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

tit. 5

, §2.

990)

May

be

take

n by

any

hunt

ing

met

hod

exce

ptfo

r th

e fo

llow

ing:

shoo

ting

from

, on,

or

acro

ss a

hig

hway

; use

of

any

pois

on e

xcep

t w

ithth

e w

ritt

en c

onse

nt o

fth

e bo

ard;

mot

ordr

iven

boa

t w

ithex

cept

ions

; use

or

aid

of a

mac

hine

gun

, set

gun,

or

a sh

otgu

n la

rger

than

10

gaug

e; a

id o

far

tific

ial l

ight

, rad

ioco

mm

unic

atio

n,ar

tific

ial s

alt l

ick,

expl

osiv

e, e

xpan

ding

gas

arro

w, b

omb,

smok

e, c

hem

ical

(exc

ludi

ng s

cent

lure

s);

etc.

(A

LASK

A A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

tit. 5

, § 9

2.07

5 &

§92

.080

)

Uni

ts 1

-5, 1

8, 2

2, 2

3an

d 26

(A)

seas

onru

ns fr

om 9

/1 t

o4/

30. (

ALA

SKA A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

tit. 5

, § 8

5.06

0)

Uni

ts 6

-17,

19-

21, 2

4,25

, 26(

B), a

nd 2

6(C

)se

ason

run

s fr

om8/

10 t

o 4/

30. (

ALA

SKA

AD

MIN

. CO

DE t

it. 5

, §85

.060

)

In U

nits

1-5

, 18,

22, 2

3 an

d 26

(A)

limit

is 2

. (A

LASK

A

AD

MIN

. CO

DE,

tit.

5,§

85.0

60)

In U

nits

6-1

7, 1

9-21

, 24,

25,

26(

B),

and

26(C

) lim

it is

10. (

ALA

SKA A

DM

IN.

CO

DE,

tit.

5, §

85.0

60)

May

be

take

n by

any

trap

ping

met

hod

exce

ptfo

r th

e fo

llow

ing:

aco

nven

tiona

l ste

el t

rap

with

an

insi

de ja

w s

prea

dov

er 9

inch

es w

ithex

cept

ions

; with

a s

nare

with

exc

eptio

ns. (

ALA

SKA

AD

MIN

. CO

DE t

it. 5

, §92

.095

)

Vary

ing

seas

ons

for

11 d

iffer

ent

grou

psof

uni

ts. (

ALA

SKA

AD

MIN

. CO

DE t

it. 5

, §84

.270

)

Unl

imite

d.(A

LASK

A

AD

MIN

.C

OD

E tit.

5,

§ 84

.270

)

Allo

ws

taki

ng o

f ani

mal

s in

defe

nse

of li

fe o

r pr

oper

ty a

slo

ng a

s: (

1) t

he a

nim

al w

as n

otha

rass

ed o

r pr

ovok

ed; (

2) t

here

was

no

impr

oper

dis

posa

l of

garb

age

or o

ther

att

ract

ive

nuis

ance

; (3)

all

othe

r pr

actic

able

mea

ns t

o pr

otec

t ar

e ex

haus

ted.

Prop

erty

is d

efin

ed a

s: pe

rman

ent

or t

empo

rary

dw

ellin

g, ai

rcra

ft,

boat

, aut

omob

ile, o

r ot

her

conv

eyan

ce, d

omes

ticat

ed a

nim

alor

oth

er p

rope

rty

of s

ubst

antia

lva

lue

nece

ssar

y fo

r th

e liv

elih

ood

or s

urvi

val o

f the

ow

ner.

Ape

rson

kill

ing

an a

nim

al u

nder

this

sec

tion

shal

l not

ify t

hede

part

men

t of

kill

ing

the

anim

alan

d co

mpl

ete

a qu

estio

nnai

reab

out

the

circ

umst

ance

ssu

rrou

ndin

g ki

lling

the

ani

mal

.(A

LASK

A A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

. 5, §

84.2

70)

AL

Gam

e.(A

LA.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r.22

0-2-

.06)

Furb

eare

r.(A

LA.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r.22

0-2-

.30)

Gun

s: R

ifles

of a

nyca

liber

; han

dgun

s or

pist

ols;

sho

tgun

s, 1

0ga

uge

or s

mal

ler

(with

slug

s or

sin

gle

roun

dba

ll on

ly d

urin

g st

alk

gun

deer

sea

son)

are

perm

itted

. (A

LA. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

r. 22

0-2-

.02

&22

0-3-

.09)

Bow

/arr

ow: L

ong

bow

s

Gun

s w

ith n

o do

gs:

Allo

wed

dur

ing

dayl

ight

hou

rs o

nly,

year

-rou

nd. (

ALA

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

220-

2-.0

1.01

)

Gun

s w

ith d

ogs:

Allo

wed

in d

aylig

htdu

ring

, and

in a

reas

of, d

og d

eer

seas

on.

(ALA

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r.

Gun

s w

ith n

odo

gs: U

nlim

ited.

(ALA

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r. 22

0-2-

.01.

01)

Gun

s w

ith D

ogs:

NS.

Bow

/arr

oww

ith n

o do

gs:

Unl

imite

d. (A

LA.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r.22

0-2-

.01.

01)

No

land

set

legh

old

trap

havi

ng a

jaw

wid

thex

ceed

ing

6 in

ches

,le

ghol

d tr

ap h

avin

g te

eth

or s

erra

ted

edge

s al

ong

the

insi

de o

f one

or

both

jaw

s, or

Con

ibea

r tr

ap o

rki

ll-ty

pe t

rap

with

jaw

wid

th e

xcee

ding

5 in

ches

or s

nare

s (e

xcep

tpo

wer

ed fo

ot s

nare

with

a m

axim

um lo

op o

f 5 1

/2

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/1

5/03

to

2/20

/04

(thi

s m

ay c

hang

eea

ch y

ear)

. (A

LA.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r. 22

0-2-

.29)

No

clos

ed s

easo

non

pri

vate

land

with

owne

r’s p

erm

issi

on.

(ALA

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r.22

0-2-

.29)

NS

Proh

ibits

kill

ing

wild

life

caus

ing

crop

or

prop

erty

dam

age

with

out

proc

urin

g a

perm

it fr

omD

epar

tmen

t of

Con

serv

atio

n an

dN

atur

al R

esou

rces

. A p

erm

it w

illbe

issu

ed if

aft

er in

vest

igat

ion

itha

s be

en d

eter

min

ed t

hat

the

prot

ecte

d w

ildlif

e sh

ould

be

rem

oved

to

prot

ect

agri

cultu

ral

crop

s or

oth

er p

rope

rty

from

exce

ssiv

e da

mag

e. (

ALA

. AD

MIN

.C

OD

E r.

220-

2-.2

7)

Appendix 45

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

or c

ompo

und

bow

sm

ay b

e us

ed. (

ALA

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

220-

2-.0

2 &

220

-3-.0

9)

Dog

s (A

LA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

r. 22

0-2-

.01.

01)

220-

2-.0

1.01

)

Bow

/arr

ow w

ith n

odo

gs: A

llow

ed d

urin

gda

ylig

ht h

ours

onl

y,ye

ar-r

ound

. (A

LA.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r. 22

0-2-

.01.

01)

Bow

/arr

ow w

ithdo

gs: A

llow

ed in

dayl

ight

dur

ing,

and

in a

reas

of,

dog

deer

seas

on. (

ALA

. AD

MIN

.C

OD

E r.

220-

2-.0

1.01

)

Dog

s: A

llow

edan

ytim

e ye

ar-

roun

dex

cept

dur

ing

dayt

ime

or a

fter

3:00

AM

dur

ing

and

in a

reas

of s

prin

gtu

rkey

sea

son

(ALA

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

220-

2-.0

1.01

)

Bow

/arr

ow w

ithD

ogs:

NS.

Dog

s: N

S.

inch

es)

can

be u

sed

totr

ap c

oyot

es o

n la

nd. A

nype

rson

tra

ppin

g co

yote

mus

t ca

rry

a ch

oke

stic

kw

hile

run

ning

tra

ps. (

ALA

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

220-

2-.3

0)

It s

hall

be il

lega

l to

set

atr

ap o

n to

p of

a p

ost

orst

ake

elev

ated

abo

vegr

ound

leve

l. (A

LA. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

r. 22

0-2-

.30)

AR

Furb

eare

r &

Gam

e. (

CO

DE

AR

K. R

. 01.

00-

C)

Allo

ws

use

of s

peci

fied

arch

ery

equi

pmen

t.(C

OD

E AR

K. R

. 8.0

4)

Allo

ws

use

of s

peci

fied

type

s of

cro

ssbo

ws.

(CO

DE A

RK. R

. 8.0

6)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs

with

exc

eptio

ns. (

CO

DE

AR

K. R

. 9.0

1)

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht (

CO

DE

AR

K. R

. 18.

02-A

)

Proh

ibits

use

of

dead

falls

, dru

gs,

Seas

on r

uns

from

9/1/

04 t

o 2/

28/0

5.(C

OD

E AR

K. R

. 2.0

9)

Lim

it 2

per

day.

(CO

DE A

RK. R

.2.

12)

Res

tric

ts u

se o

f sna

res,

stee

l tra

p, a

nd C

onib

ear

by t

ype.

Pro

hibi

ts le

gsn

ares

and

onl

y no

n-lo

ckin

g sn

ares

may

be

used

on

land

. The

use

of

any

form

of s

ight

bai

tco

mpo

sed

of a

nim

alm

atte

r w

ithin

20

feet

of a

trap

is p

rohi

bite

d. (

CO

DE

AR

K. R

. 10.

02)

Seas

on r

uns

from

8/1/

04 t

o 3/

31/0

5(w

ill c

hang

e ea

chye

ar).

(CO

DE A

RK. R

.2.

07)

Unl

imite

d(C

OD

E AR

K.

R. 2

.12)

Allo

ws

for

the

taki

ng o

f ani

mal

sca

usin

g da

mag

e to

cro

ps o

rpr

oper

ty (

1) d

urin

g an

ope

nse

ason

on

the

spec

ies

com

mitt

ing

the

dam

age

or (

2)un

der

a pe

rmit

issu

ed b

y th

eco

mm

issi

on. (

CO

DE A

RK. R

10.

04&

18.

09)

Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

pois

ons,

che

mic

als,

expl

osiv

es, o

r an

yde

vice

des

igne

d to

tak

ew

ildlif

e by

the

activ

atio

n of

a t

rip

wir

e, e

lect

roni

c ac

tions

of a

sw

itch,

or

othe

rm

eans

tha

t do

not

requ

ire

the

atte

ndan

ceof

an

indi

vidu

al t

o)ac

tivat

e sa

id d

evic

e.(C

OD

E AR

K. R

. 18.

07)

AZ

Pred

ator

. (A

RIZ

.R

EV. S

TAT. §

17-

101)

Allo

ws

use

of fi

rear

ms

with

exc

eptio

ns, b

ow/

arro

w a

nd c

ross

bow

.(A

RIZ

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

R12

-4-3

03 &

R12

-304

)

Proh

ibits

use

of l

ight

.(A

RIZ

. REV

. STA

T. §

17-

30)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(Com

mis

sion

Ord

er13

)

Unl

imite

d.(C

omm

issi

onO

rder

13)

Proh

ibits

the

use

of

legh

old

trap

, ins

tant

kill

body

-gri

ppin

g de

sign

trap

,or

poi

son

or s

nare

on

any

publ

ic la

nd. (

AR

IZ. R

EV.

S TAT

. § 1

7-30

1)

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/1

/04

to 2

/28/

05.

(Com

mis

sion

Ord

er23

)

Unl

imite

d.(C

omm

is-

sion

Ord

er23

)

Any

per

son

suffe

ring

pro

pert

yda

mag

e fr

om w

ildlif

e m

ayex

erci

se a

ll re

ason

able

mea

sure

sto

alle

viat

e th

e da

mag

e, e

xcep

tfo

r ki

lling

spe

cies

pro

tect

ed b

yfe

dera

l law

or

regu

latio

n un

less

othe

rwis

e au

thor

ized

. Any

per

son

suffe

ring

suc

h pr

oper

ty d

amag

e,af

ter

reso

rtin

g to

see

king

the

irow

n re

lief m

ay fi

le a

wri

tten

repo

rt w

ith t

he D

irec

tor,

and

the

Dir

ecto

r sh

all i

mm

edia

tely

ord

eran

inve

stig

atio

n an

d re

port

by

anem

ploy

ee t

rain

ed in

the

han

dlin

gof

wild

ani

mal

dep

reda

tion.

The

Dep

artm

ent

shal

l pro

vide

tech

nica

l adv

ice

and

assi

st in

the

nece

ssar

y an

ti-de

pred

atio

nm

easu

res

reco

mm

ende

d in

the

repo

rt, i

nclu

ding

trap

ping

,ca

ptur

ing,

and

relo

catin

g an

imal

s.(A

RIZ

. REV

. STA

T. §

17-

239)

The

Dep

artm

ent

may

issu

e a

nonf

ee s

mal

l gam

e de

pred

atio

npe

rmit

to t

ake

smal

l gam

e to

the

land

owne

r, le

ssee

, liv

esto

ck


cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

oper

ator

, or

mun

icip

ality

suf

feri

ngda

mag

e w

hen

the

Dep

artm

ent

dete

rmin

es t

hat

all o

ther

rem

edie

s ha

ve b

een

exha

uste

dan

d th

e ta

ke o

f suc

h sm

all g

ame

is n

eces

sary

to

alle

viat

e th

eda

mag

e be

ing

caus

ed. (

AR

IZ.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

R12

-4-1

13)

CA

Non

gam

e. (C

AL.

F ISH

& G

AM

E

CO

DE

§ 41

50)

May

be

take

n in

any

man

ner

exce

pt p

oiso

nsm

ay n

ot b

e us

ed; n

ofe

ed, b

ait

or o

ther

mat

eria

l cap

able

of

attr

actin

g a

coyo

te m

aybe

pla

ced

or u

sed

inco

njun

ctio

n w

ith d

ogs

for

the

purp

ose

ofta

king

the

anim

al. (

CA

L.C

OD

E R

EGS.

tit. 1

4, §

475)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(CA

L. C

OD

E REG

S. tit

.14

, § 4

72)

Unl

imite

d. (C

AL.

CO

DE

REG

S. tit

. 14,

§ 47

2)

Proh

ibits

use

of a

ny b

ody-

grip

ping

tra

p, in

clud

ing

Con

ibea

r tr

aps,

and

snar

es fo

r th

e pu

rpos

esof

rec

reat

ion

orco

mm

erce

in fu

r. (C

AL.

F ISH

& G

AM

E C

OD

E §

3003

.1 a

nd C

AL.

CO

DE

REG

S. tit

. 14,

§ 4

65.5

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(C

AL.

CO

DE

REG

S. tit

. 14,

§ 4

72)

Unl

imite

d.(C

AL.

CO

DE

REG

S. tit

.14

, § 4

72)

Non

gam

e an

d fu

rbea

ring

mam

mal

s th

at a

re in

juri

ngpr

oper

ty m

ay b

e ta

ken

at a

nytim

e or

in a

ny m

anne

r in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith t

he F

ish

and

Gam

e C

ode

by t

he o

wne

r or

tena

nt o

f the

pre

mis

es o

rem

ploy

ees

ther

eof.

(CA

L. FI

SH &

GA

ME

CO

DE

§ 41

52 a

nd §

418

0)

CO

Furb

eare

r.(C

OLO

. REV

. STA

T.

§ 33

-1-1

02 a

nd2

CO

LO. C

OD

E

REG

S. §

406-

3,#

300)

Allo

ws

the

use

of a

nyri

fle; h

andg

un; s

hotg

un;

hand

held

bow

s an

dcr

ossb

ows;

elec

tric

cal

lde

vice

s; m

otor

veh

icle

sw

ith p

erm

it; a

ircr

aft

with

per

mit;

art

ifici

allig

ht o

n pr

ivat

e la

nds

with

per

mis

sion

; and

artif

icia

l lig

ht o

n pu

blic

land

s w

ith p

erm

it. (

2C

OLO

. CO

DE

REG

S. §

406-

3, #

302)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs

asan

aid

to

purs

ue, b

ring

to b

ay, r

etri

eve,

flus

h,or

poi

nt. (

2 C

OLO

. CO

DE

REG

S. §

406-

0, #

004)

Proh

ibits

use

of

pois

ons.

(CO

LO. R

EV.

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und;

hunt

ing

hour

s ar

efr

om ½

hou

r be

fore

sunr

ise

to ½

hou

raf

ter

suns

et. A

lso,

coyo

tes

may

be

hunt

ed a

t ni

ght.

(2C

OLO

. CO

DE

REG

S. §

406-

3, #

301

and

§40

6-3,

#32

4)

Unl

imite

d. (2

CO

LO. C

OD

E R

EGS.

§40

6-3,

#30

1 an

d §

406-

3, #

324)

Proh

ibits

the

use

of a

legh

old

trap

, ins

tant

kill

body

-gri

ppin

g de

sign

trap

,po

ison

or

snar

e. (

CO

LO.

REV

. STA

T. §

33-

6-20

3)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und;

day

or

nigh

t.(2

CO

LO. C

OD

E R

EGS.

§ 40

6-3,

#30

1 an

d §

406-

3, #

324)

Unl

imite

d.(2

CO

LO.

CO

DE R

EGS.

§ 40

6-3,

#30

1 an

d §

406-

3,#

324)

Perm

its p

erso

ns t

o us

epr

ohib

ited

trap

ping

dev

ices

outli

ned

in C

OLO

. REV

. STA

T. §

33-

6-20

3 to

pro

tect

ow

ner’s

land

that

is p

rim

arily

use

d fo

rag

ricu

lture

or

lives

tock

and

if t

hela

ndow

ner

can

prov

e ot

her

met

hods

hav

e be

en in

effe

ctiv

e.Pe

rson

is p

erm

itted

to

use

leth

alde

vice

s fo

r a

30-d

ay p

erio

d pe

rye

ar. (

CO

LO. R

EV. S

TAT. §

33-

6-20

7)

Prov

ides

a $

1 bo

unty

for

ever

yco

yote

kill

ed. (

CO

LO. R

EV. S

TAT. §

35-4

0-10

7)

Appendix 47

Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

STAT

. § 3

3-6-

130)

CT

Qua

drup

eds.

(CO

NN. G

EN.

S TA

T. §

26-

1)

Allo

ws

the

use

offir

earm

s; hi

gh v

eloc

ityai

r gu

ns u

sing

a s

ingl

eba

ll or

pel

let

type

proj

ectil

e; a

ndco

mpo

und,

long

, or

recu

rved

bow

. (C

ON

N.

AG

ENC

IES

REG

S. §

26-6

6-1) N

o pe

rson

whi

le in

am

otor

veh

icle

,sn

owm

obile

, or

all-

terr

ain

vehi

cle

or b

yai

d or

use

of a

ny li

ght

or li

ghts

car

ried

on

the

vehi

cle

may

hun

t a

quad

rupe

d. (C

ON

N.

GEN

. STA

T. §

26-

74)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und,

exce

pt fo

r th

e 25

-da

y tu

rkey

sea

son.

(CO

NN. A

GEN

CIE

S

REG

S. §

26-6

6-3)

No

hunt

ing

from

½ho

ur a

fter

sun

set

to½

hou

r be

fore

sunr

ise.

(CO

NN

.A

GEN

CIE

S R

EGS.

§ 26

-66

-1)

Unl

imite

d. (C

ON

N.

AG

ENC

IES R

EGS.

§26

-66-

3)

Allo

ws

use

of d

eadf

all,

box

trap

s, an

d liv

e tr

aps;

allo

ws

use

of u

npad

ded

met

al t

raps

in w

ater

,pa

dded

met

al a

nd s

moo

thw

ired

tra

ps w

ith s

peci

fied

dim

ensi

ons.

(CO

NN.

AG

ENC

IES

REG

S. §

26-6

6-5)

Proh

ibits

the

use

of

snar

es. (

CO

NN

. GEN

. STA

T.

§ 26

-72)

Seas

on b

egin

s th

eSu

nday

follo

win

g th

efir

st S

atur

day

inN

ovem

ber

thro

ugh

Mar

ch 1

5th. (

CO

NN

.A

GEN

CIE

S R

EGS.

§ 26

-66

-7)

Unl

imite

d.(C

ON

N.

AG

ENC

IES

REG

S. §

26-

66-7

)

Allo

ws

any

land

owne

r or

less

eeof

land

use

d fo

r ag

ricu

ltura

l or

gam

e-ra

isin

g pu

rpos

es t

o ta

kefu

rbea

ring

ani

mal

s in

juri

ng a

nypr

oper

ty. (

CO

NN

. GEN

. STA

T. §

26-

72)

DE

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

FLFu

rbea

rer.

(FLA

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

AN

N. r

. 68A

-1.

004)

Allo

ws

use

of g

uns

and

dogs

. (F L

A. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

AN

N. r

. 68A

-12.

002)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(FLA

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

AN

N r

. 68A

-24.

002)

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 1

9)

Allo

ws

use

of li

ve t

raps

and

snar

es; p

rohi

bits

ste

eltr

aps.

(FLA

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

AN

N. r

. 68A

-24.

002)

Proh

ibits

ste

el o

rle

ghol

d tr

aps.

(Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k,p.

19)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(FLA

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

AN

N. r

. 68A

-24.

002)

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook

p. 1

9)

Allo

ws

pers

ons

to k

ill d

estr

uctiv

em

amm

als

on t

heir

ow

n pr

oper

tyw

ithin

the

imm

edia

te lo

calit

yw

here

dam

age

is o

ccur

ring

by

mea

ns o

ther

tha

n gu

n an

dar

tific

ial l

ight

, ste

el t

raps

, or

pois

on (

unle

ss t

hose

met

hods

are

allo

wed

by

a pe

rmit

issu

ed b

yth

e co

mm

issi

on e

xecu

tive

dire

ctor

). (F

LA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E AN

N.

r. 68

A-1

2.00

9)

GA

Non

gam

e. (G

A.

CO

DE A

NN

. §27

-1-2

8)

May

be

take

n by

any

met

hod

exce

pt t

hose

spec

ifica

lly p

rohi

bite

dby

law

. (G

A. C

OD

E AN

N.

NS

NS

May

be

take

n by

any

met

hod

exce

pt t

hose

spec

ifica

lly p

rohi

bite

d by

law

. (G

A. C

OD

E AN

N. §

27-

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(GA. C

OM

P. R

. & R

EGS.

r. 39

1-4-

2-.1

2)

NS

The

dep

artm

ent

may

issu

ew

ildlif

e co

ntro

l per

mits

auth

oriz

ing

the

perm

itee

to t

rap,

tran

spor

t an

d re

leas

e or

kill


cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

§ 27

-1-2

8)

No

firea

rms

rest

rict

ions

. (G

A. C

OD

E

AN

N. §

27-

3-4)

Proh

ibits

des

troy

ing

ofde

ns, h

oles

, or

hom

esof

any

wild

life;

use

of

light

s to

blin

d w

ildlif

e;or

use

of e

xplo

sive

s,ch

emic

als,

ele

ctri

cal o

rm

echa

nica

l dev

ices

, or

smok

ers

of a

ny k

ind

inor

der

to d

rive

wild

life

out o

f hab

itat.

(GA.

CO

DE A

NN

. § 2

7-1-

30)

1-28

)

Proh

ibits

set

ting

on la

ndan

y le

ghol

d or

bod

y-gr

ippi

ng t

raps

exc

eedi

ngsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s. (G

A.

CO

DE A

NN

. § 2

7-3-

63)

wild

life

whe

re s

uch

actio

n is

othe

rwis

e pr

ohib

ited

by la

ww

hen

ther

e is

a s

ubst

antia

llik

elih

ood

that

the

wild

life

dam

aged

the

pro

pert

y. (G

A. C

OD

E

AN

N. §

27-

2-31

)

IAFu

rbea

rer.

(IO

WA C

OD

E §

481A

.1)

Allo

ws

pers

ons

to t

rain

dogs

on

coyo

tes.

(IO

WA

CO

DE

§ 48

1A.5

6)

Proh

ibits

the

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht, e

xcep

tw

hen

furb

eari

ngan

imal

s ha

ve b

een

tree

d by

dog

s. (I

OW

A

CO

DE

§ 48

1A.9

3)

Proh

ibits

dis

turb

ing

any

den,

lodg

e, o

r ho

use

ofa

furb

eari

ng a

nim

alex

cept

by

wri

tten

perm

issi

on o

f an

offic

erap

poin

ted

by t

hedi

rect

or o

r to

pro

tect

one’

s pr

oper

ty. (

I OW

A

CO

DE

§ 48

1A.9

0)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(IO

WA A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

571-

108.

5)

Unl

imite

d. (

IOW

A

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

r.57

1-10

8.5)

Proh

ibits

use

of l

egho

ldtr

aps

with

tee

th a

ndle

ghol

d tr

aps

exce

edin

gsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s.(I

OW

A A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

571-

110.

4)

Proh

ibits

sna

res

whe

n se

tw

ith a

loop

larg

er t

han

eigh

t in

ches

in h

oriz

onta

lm

easu

rem

ent

exce

pt fo

r a

snar

e se

t w

ith a

t le

ast

one-

half

of t

he lo

opun

der

wat

er. (

I OW

A C

OD

E

§ 48

1A.9

2)

Seas

on is

from

firs

tSa

turd

ay in

Nov

em-

ber

thro

ugh

1/31

.(I

OW

A A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

571-

108.

)

Unl

imite

d.(I

OW

A

AD

MIN

.C

OD

E r.

571-

108.

5)

Any

con

serv

atio

n of

ficer

or

wild

life

biol

ogis

t m

ay a

utho

rize

ala

ndow

ner,

tena

nt, o

r de

sign

ee t

otr

ap c

oyot

es c

ausi

ng d

amag

eou

tsid

e th

e es

tabl

ishe

d tr

appi

ngse

ason

dat

es. (

I OW

A A

DM

IN. C

OD

E r.

571-

108.

5)

Allo

ws

pers

ons

to t

ake

fur-

bear

ers

outs

ide

of o

pen

seas

ons

to p

rote

ct p

erso

n or

pro

pert

yw

ith p

rior

per

mis

sion

from

aco

mm

issi

on r

epre

sent

ativ

e un

less

gett

ing

prio

r pe

rmis

sion

isim

prac

tical

. (I O

WA C

OD

E §

481A

.87)

HI

No

coyo

tes

inst

ate.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Appendix 49

Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

IDPr

edat

or.

(ID

AH

O C

OD

E §

36-2

01 a

ndI D

AH

O A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

13.0

1.16

.010

)

May

be

take

n in

any

man

ner

not

proh

ibite

dby

sta

te o

r fe

dera

l law

,by

hol

ders

of t

heap

prop

riat

e va

lid s

tate

hunt

ing,

trap

ping

, or

com

bina

tion

hunt

ing

and

fishi

ng li

cens

es,

prov

ided

suc

h ta

king

isno

t in

vio

latio

n of

stat

e, c

ount

y, or

city

law

s, or

dina

nces

, or

regu

latio

ns. (

I DA

HO

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

10.0

1.06

.300

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(ID

AH

O A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

10.0

1.06

.300

)

Unl

imit

ed. (

IDA

HO

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

10.0

1.06

.300

)

May

be

take

n in

any

man

ner

not

proh

ibite

d by

stat

e or

fede

ral l

aw, b

yho

lder

s of

the

appr

opri

ate

valid

sta

tehu

ntin

g, tr

appi

ng, o

rco

mbi

natio

n hu

ntin

g an

dfis

hing

lice

nses

, pro

vide

dsu

ch t

akin

g is

not

invi

olat

ion

of s

tate

, cou

nty,

or c

ity la

ws,

ordi

nanc

es,

or r

egul

atio

ns. (

I DA

HO

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

10.0

1.06

.30

0)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(ID

AH

O A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

10.0

1.06

.300

)

Unl

imite

d.(I

DA

HO

AD

MIN

.C

OD

E 10

.01

.06.

300)

Pred

ator

s m

ay b

e ki

lled

by li

ve-

stoc

k ow

ners

, the

ir e

mpl

oyee

s,ag

ents

, and

ani

mal

dam

age

cont

rol p

erso

nnel

whe

n th

ean

imal

s ar

e m

oles

ting

lives

tock

;no

per

mit

is n

eces

sary

. Liv

esto

ckow

ners

may

tak

e st

eps

they

deem

nec

essa

ry t

o pr

otec

t th

eir

lives

tock

. (I D

AH

O C

OD

E §

36-

1101

7)

ILFu

rbea

rer.

(520

ILL.

CO

MP.

STAT

.5/

1.2g

)

Proh

ibits

poi

son,

spec

ified

typ

es o

fsh

otgu

ns, a

ndcr

ossb

ows.

(520

I LL.

CO

MP.

STAT

. 5/2

.33)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und

exce

pt a

s no

ted

inSe

ctio

n 55

0.10

(a);

½ho

ur b

efor

e su

nris

eto

½ h

our

afte

rsu

nset

with

lim

ited

exce

ptio

ns. (

I LL

AD

MIN

CO

DE

tit.

17,

§55

0.2)

Unl

imite

d. (I

LL

AD

MIN

CO

DE

tit.

17,

§ 55

0.20

)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

se o

fsp

ecifi

ed t

ypes

of s

nare

sin

wat

er. (

520

I LL.

CO

MP.

S TAT

. 5/2

.33)

Proh

ibits

usi

ng c

erta

inle

ghol

d an

d bo

dy-g

ripp

ing

trap

s ex

ceed

ing

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons

on la

nd a

ndin

wat

er; p

rohi

bits

any

trap

with

saw

-too

thed

,sp

iked

, or

toot

hed

jaw

s.(I

L H

untin

g H

andb

ook,

p.

21)

Seas

on r

uns

fro

11/1

0 to

1/2

0. (I

LL.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE t

it. 1

7, §

570.

20)

Unl

imite

d.(I

LL. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE t

it.17

§57

0.30

)

The

Dep

artm

ent

may

aut

hori

zeow

ners

/ten

ants

or

thei

r ag

ents

to r

emov

e or

des

troy

any

wild

bird

or

wild

mam

mal

whe

nan

imal

is k

now

n to

be

dest

royi

ngpr

oper

ty o

r ca

usin

g a

risk

to

hum

an h

ealth

or

safe

ty u

pon

his

or h

er la

nd. O

wne

r/te

nant

sha

llno

tify

depa

rtm

ent

of d

amag

e an

daf

ter

inve

stig

atio

n an

d fin

ding

that

dam

age

can

be a

bate

d on

lybe

rem

ovin

g or

kill

ing

the

anim

al,

a pe

rmit

shal

l be

issu

ed fo

r no

mor

e th

an 9

0 da

ys. (

520

I LL.

CO

MP.

S TA

T. 5

/2.3

7)

INFu

rbea

rer.

(IN

D.

CO

DE

§ 14

-8-2

-10

8)

Proh

ibits

rem

oval

of

wild

ani

mal

s fr

om a

nyca

vity

or

den;

rest

rict

ions

on

dist

urbi

ng d

ens;

allo

ws

use

of d

ogs

from

11/

8to

1/3

1. (H

untin

gG

uide

, p. 1

1)

Seas

on r

uns

from

10/1

5 to

2/2

8; a

llow

son

e w

ho p

osse

sses

land

or

a pe

rson

desi

gnat

ed in

wri

ting

by t

hat

pers

on t

ota

ke c

oyot

es a

nytim

e. (

I ND. A

DM

IN

NS

Proh

ibits

use

of s

peci

fied

type

s of

legh

old

trap

s,in

clud

ing

thos

epo

sses

sing

saw

-tee

th o

rsp

iked

jaw

s; pr

ohib

itsse

ttin

g on

land

Con

ibea

rtr

aps

exce

edin

g sp

ecifi

eddi

men

sion

s; pr

ohib

its u

se

Seas

on r

uns

from

10/1

5 to

2/2

8; a

llow

son

e w

ho p

osse

sses

land

or

a pe

rson

desi

gnat

ed in

wri

ting

by t

hat

pers

on t

ota

ke c

oyot

es a

nytim

e. (

I ND. A

DM

IN

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gG

uide

,p.

10)

Allo

ws

the

dire

ctor

to

issu

e a

perm

it to

pro

pert

y ow

ners

,le

ssee

s or

WC

Os

to c

ontr

olan

imal

s th

reat

enin

g pr

oper

ty o

rpe

rson

s. (I

ND. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E ti

t.31

2, 9

-10-

11)


cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

CO

DE

tit. 3

12, 9

-3-

12)

of s

nare

s (u

nles

s w

ritt

enpe

rmis

sion

is g

rant

ed b

yth

e la

ndow

ner;

with

dim

ensi

on li

mita

tions

).(I

ND. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

. 312

,9-

3-18

)

CO

DE

tit. 3

12, 9

-3-

12)

KS

NS

Allo

ws

use

of fi

rear

ms,

exce

pt fu

lly a

utom

atic

firea

rms;

arch

ery

equi

pmen

t; an

dcr

ossb

ows.

(KA

N.

AD

MIN

. REG

S. 11

5-5-

1)

Proh

ibits

use

of

arti

ficia

l lig

ht. (

Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k, p

. 16)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und,

exce

pt fo

r se

ason

for

the

taki

ng o

fde

er b

y fir

earm

.(K

AN. S

TAT. A

NN

. § 3

2-10

06)

NS

Allo

ws

use

of fo

otho

ldtr

aps,

body

-gri

ppin

g tr

aps,

box

trap

s, liv

e tr

aps,

snar

es, a

nd d

ead

falls

.(K

AN. A

DM

IN. R

EGS.

115-

5-1)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und,

exc

ept

for

seas

on fo

r th

eta

king

of d

eer

byfir

earm

. (K

AN

. STA

T.

AN

N. §

32-

1006

)

NS

NS

KY

Furb

eare

r.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p.

35)

Allo

ws

use

ofcr

ossb

ow, b

ow &

arro

w, d

ogs,

and

rest

rict

ed u

se o

f gun

s.(K

Y. R

EV. S

TAT. §

150.

360)

Proh

ibits

the

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht. (

KY. R

EV.

S TAT

. AN

N. §

150

.395

)

Proh

ibits

kill

ing

wild

life

with

the

aid

of f

ire,

smok

e, e

xplo

sive

s, or

gas.

(KY. R

EV. S

TAT. A

NN. §

150.

365)

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht. (

KY. R

EV.

S TAT

. AN

N. §

150

.395

,36

0)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(301

KY. A

DM

IN R

EGS.

3:03

0 an

d H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 3

5)

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 3

5)A

per

son

trap

ping

on

dry

land

sha

ll no

t: se

t tr

aps

clos

er t

han

10 fe

et a

part

;us

e a

trap

exc

ept

a:de

adfa

ll; w

ire

cage

or

box

trap

; num

ber

two

orsm

alle

r fo

ot-h

old

trap

;pa

dded

tra

p w

ith a

jaw

spre

ad o

f six

inch

es o

rle

ss; n

umbe

r 22

0 or

smal

ler

Con

ibea

r-ty

petr

ap; o

r no

nloc

king

sna

re.

No

rest

rict

ions

on

a tr

apus

ed a

s a

wat

er s

etex

cept

dur

ing

the

exte

nded

bea

ver

seas

on.

(301

KY. A

DM

IN. R

EGS.

2:25

1S

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 3

5)

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 3

5)

Allo

ws

resi

dent

hom

eow

ners

and

fam

ily m

embe

rs t

o ki

ll or

tra

pw

ithou

t a

licen

se w

ildlif

e ca

usin

gda

mag

e to

the

ir la

nd. (

KY. R

EV.

STAT

. AN

N. §

150

.170

)

LAFu

rbea

rer

&N

onga

me

Qua

drup

ed. (

56L A

. REV

. STA

T.

Proh

ibits

the

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht. (

56 L

A.

REV

. STA

T. A

NN. §

116

.1)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und;

duri

ng d

aylig

htsh

ootin

g ho

urs.

(Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k

NS

May

be

take

n on

ly d

urin

gth

e op

en t

rapp

ing

seas

onan

d on

ly b

y m

eans

of a

trap

or

snar

e. (

Hun

ting

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/2

0/03

to

3/31

/04

(cha

nges

eac

h ye

ar).

(Tra

ppin

g

NS

Coy

otes

pro

ven

to b

e ca

usin

g a

nuis

ance

or

caus

ing

dam

age

topr

oper

ty c

an b

e ta

ken

by t

he la

ndow

ner

year

-rou

nd w

ithou

t pe

rmit

Appendix 51

Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

AN

N. §

8)

Allo

ws

use

of lo

ngbo

w&

arr

ow; h

andg

un; r

ifle;

spec

ified

sho

tgun

s; a

ndre

stri

cted

use

of d

ogs

duri

ng t

urke

y an

d de

erse

ason

s (H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 1

8)

– w

ebsi

te)

Han

dboo

k –

web

site

)

Proh

ibits

use

of t

raps

with

tee

th. (

56 L

A. R

EV.

S TAT

. AN

N. §

121

.1)

Reg

ulat

ions

Pam

phle

t, p.

2)

by t

rapp

ing

or s

hoot

ing

duri

ngda

ylig

ht h

ours

. (L A

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit. 7

6, §

125

)

MA

NS

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs

outs

ide

of t

he s

hotg

unde

er s

easo

n an

d bo

w &

arro

w; p

rohi

bits

use

of

pois

ons

and

artif

icia

llig

ht. (

Mas

s Wild

life

Hun

ting

Gui

de, p

. 7, 1

0)

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/1

to

2/28

, ½ h

our

befo

re s

unri

se t

om

idni

ght;

seas

oncl

osed

on

Sund

ays

and

duri

ng t

hesh

otgu

n de

er s

easo

n.(M

ASS

. REG

S. C

OD

E tit.

321,

§ 3

.02)

Unl

imite

d. (M

ass

Wild

life

Hun

ting

Gui

de, p

. 6)

Allo

ws

box

and

cage

trap

s. (M

ASS

. REG

S. C

OD

E

tit. 3

21, §

3.0

2)

Proh

ibits

cho

ke t

raps

,le

ghol

d tr

aps,

Con

ibea

r,an

d ne

ts fo

r co

yote

s.(M

ASS

. GEN

. LA

WS A

NN. c

h.13

1, §

80A

and

Mas

s.W

ildlif

e H

untin

g G

uide

, p.

10)

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/1

to

the

follo

win

g11

/30.

(MA

SS. R

EGS.

CO

DE

tit. 3

21, §

3.02

0)

Unl

imite

d.(M

ass

Wild

life

Hun

ting

Gui

de, p

.6)

Allo

ws

the

dire

ctor

to

issu

epe

rmits

to

use

rest

rict

ed t

raps

to

“aba

te a

nim

al p

robl

ems

onpr

oper

ty o

wne

d by

the

appl

ican

t” a

fter

the

app

lican

tpr

oves

tha

t th

e pr

oble

m c

anno

tre

ason

ably

be

abat

ed b

y th

e us

eof

per

mis

sibl

e tr

aps.

(MA

SS. R

EGS.

CO

DE

tit. 3

21, §

2.0

8)

MD

Fur-

bear

ing

mam

mal

. (M

D.

CO

DE A

NN

., N

AT.

RES

. § 1

0-10

1an

d M

D. R

EGS.

CO

DE

tit. 8

, §.0

1)

Allo

ws

use

of fi

rear

ms

and

bow

& a

rrow

. (M

D.

REG

S. C

OD

E tit

. 8, §

.05)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs

and

artif

icia

l lig

ht w

hen

hunt

ing

coyo

te o

n fo

ot.

(MD

Dep

artm

ent

ofN

atur

al R

esou

rces

web

site

)

Seas

on is

½ h

our

befo

re s

unri

se t

o ½

hour

aft

er s

unse

t,ye

ar-r

ound

. (M

DD

epar

tmen

t of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esw

ebsi

te)

Unl

imite

d.(D

epar

tmen

t of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esw

ebsi

te)

Allo

ws

box

and

cage

trap

s in

all

upla

nd a

ndw

etla

nd a

reas

; allo

ws

use

of le

ghol

d an

d bo

dy-

grip

ping

tra

ps w

ithsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s. (M

D.

REG

S. C

OD

E tit

. 8, §

.03)

Dep

endi

ng o

n th

eco

unty

, 11/

1 to

1/1

9or

11/

15 t

o 1/

31.

(MD

Dep

artm

ent

ofN

atur

al R

esou

rces

web

site

)

Unl

imite

d.(D

epar

t-m

ent

ofN

atur

alR

esou

rces

web

site

)

Allo

ws

pers

ons

“to

trap

or

hunt

on t

he p

erso

n’s

land

a c

oyot

eth

at is

dam

agin

g or

des

troy

ing

the

pers

onal

or

real

pro

pert

y of

the

owne

r.” (

MD. C

OD

E AN

N.,

NA

T.

RES

. § 1

0-40

6)

ME

NS

Spec

ifica

lly a

llow

s us

eof

bow

& a

rrow

s. (M

E.R

EV. S

TAT. A

NN

. tit.

12,

§10

952)

Allo

ws

hunt

ing

atni

ght

of c

oyot

esfr

om Ja

nuar

y 1

toA

pril

30. (

ME.

REV

.S T

AT. A

NN

. tit

. 12,

§11

160

and

§ 12

001)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(CO

DE

ME.

R §

4.0

1)

Unl

imite

d. (M

ED

ept.

of In

land

Fish

erie

s an

dW

ildlif

e w

ebsi

te.)

Proh

ibits

set

ting

on la

ndle

ghol

d tr

aps

with

auxi

liary

tee

th; p

rohi

bits

pois

ons;

proh

ibits

use

of

snar

es. (

ME.

REV

. STA

T. A

NN.

tit. 1

2, §

122

52)

Allo

ws

cage

-typ

e tr

aps;

allo

ws

use

of c

olon

y an

d

Reg

ular

Tra

ppin

gSe

ason

: fro

m t

heSu

nday

pre

cedi

ngth

e fir

st d

ay o

f the

open

fire

arm

sea

son

on d

eer

thro

ugh

12/3

1. (

CO

DE

ME.

R §

4.01

)

Unl

imite

d.(M

E D

ept.

of In

land

Fish

erie

san

dW

ildlif

ew

ebsi

te.)

Allo

ws

pers

ons

to k

ill a

ny a

nim

al“f

ound

in t

he a

ct o

f att

acki

ng,

wor

ryin

g, or

wou

ndin

g th

atpe

rson

’s do

mes

tic a

nim

als.

..or

dest

royi

ng t

hat

pers

on’s

prop

erty

.” M

E. R

EV. S

TAT. A

NN. t

it.

12, §

124

01)

Allo

ws

the

culti

vato

r, ow

ner,

or


cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

kill-

type

tra

ps w

ithsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s.(C

OD

E M

E. R

. § 4

.01)

Earl

y Fo

x an

dC

oyot

e Tr

appi

ngSe

ason

: ext

ends

the

regu

lar

seas

on b

ym

ovin

g th

e op

enin

gda

y up

tw

o w

eeks

;pr

ohib

its k

iller

tra

psan

d tr

aps

set

inw

ater

dur

ing

this

time.

(C

OD

E M

E. R

§4.

01)

mor

tgag

ee o

f spe

cifie

d cr

ops

toki

ll an

imal

s da

y or

nig

ht w

hen

the

anim

al is

foun

d in

the

cro

p w

here

the

dam

age

is o

ccur

ring

. (M

E. R

EV.

S TAT

. AN

N. t

it. 1

2, §

124

02)

The

com

mis

sion

er m

ay c

ause

depa

rtm

ent

pers

onne

l to

take

coyo

tes

at a

ny t

ime

and

in a

nym

anne

r th

at t

he c

omm

issi

oner

may

pre

scri

be. (

ME.

REV

. STA

T. A

NN

.tit

. 12,

§ 1

2404

)

Req

uire

s th

e co

mm

issi

oner

to

mai

ntai

n a

“coy

ote

cont

rol

prog

ram

” by

em

ploy

ing

pers

ons

to s

erve

as

agen

ts o

f the

depa

rtm

ent

for

the

purp

oses

of

coyo

te c

ontr

ol. (

ME.

REV

. STA

T.

AN

N. t

it. 1

2, §

101

08)

MI

Furb

eare

r.(M

ICH. C

OM

P.L A

WS

§32

4.43

503)

Gam

e.(M

ICH. C

OM

P.L A

WS

§32

4.40

103)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

gun

s an

d bo

w &

arro

w; p

rohi

bits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht. (

MI D

ept.

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

web

site

)

Seas

on r

uns

from

7/

15/2

004

to 3

/1/2

005

and

from

10/

15 t

o3/

1 w

ith g

ame

orpr

edat

or c

all o

nly.

(MI D

ept.

of N

atur

alR

esou

rces

web

site

)

NS

Proh

ibits

use

of t

raps

othe

r th

an li

ve t

raps

and

body

grip

ping

, Con

ibea

r,an

d fo

otho

ld t

raps

with

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons;

allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

se o

fsp

ecifi

ed t

ypes

of s

nare

sfr

om 1

/1 t

o 3/

1 to

tra

pco

yote

s. (M

I Dep

t. of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esw

ebsi

te)

Seas

on r

uns

from

10/1

5/20

04 t

o 3/

1/20

05. (

MI D

ept.

ofN

atur

al R

esou

rces

web

site

)

NS

Coy

otes

cau

sing

dam

age

onpr

ivat

e pr

oper

ty m

ay b

e hu

nted

or t

rapp

ed b

y th

e pr

oper

tyow

ner

or d

esig

nee

any

time

with

out

a lic

ense

. (M

I Dep

t. of

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es w

ebsi

te)

MN

Pred

ator

&U

npro

tect

edW

ild A

nim

al.

(MIN

N. S

TAT.

AN

N. §

97A

.015

)

Mam

mal

s th

at a

reun

prot

ecte

d w

ildan

imal

s m

ay b

e ta

ken

atan

y tim

e an

d in

any

man

ner,

exce

pt w

ithar

tific

ial l

ight

s or

by

usin

g a

mot

or v

ehic

lein

vio

latio

n of

§97

B.09

1.

Pois

on m

ay n

ot b

e

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k,p.

41)

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 4

1)

Mam

mal

s th

at a

reun

prot

ecte

d w

ild a

nim

als

may

be

take

n at

any

tim

ean

d in

any

man

ner,

exce

ptw

ith a

rtifi

cial

ligh

ts o

r by

usin

g a

mot

or v

ehic

le in

viol

atio

n of

§ 9

7B.0

91.

Pois

on m

ay n

ot b

e us

edto

tak

e un

prot

ecte

dm

amm

als

or u

npro

tect

ed

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 4

1)

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 4

1)

NS

Appendix 53


Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

used

to

take

unpr

otec

ted

mam

mal

sor

unp

rote

cted

bir

dsun

less

the

saf

ety

ofhu

man

s an

d do

mes

ticliv

esto

ck is

ens

ured

.(M

INN. S

TAT. A

NN. §

97B.

651

and

Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k, p

. 28)

bird

s un

less

the

saf

ety

ofhu

man

s an

d do

mes

ticliv

esto

ck is

ens

ured

.(M

INN. S

TAT. A

NN. §

97B.

651

and

Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k, p

. 28)

MO

Furb

eare

r. (M

O.

CO

DE

REG

S. A

NN.

tit. 3

, § 1

0-20

.805

)

Allo

ws

use

of g

uns,

slin

gsho

ts, lo

ngbo

ws,

and

cros

sbow

s; al

low

sre

stri

cted

use

of d

ogs;

proh

ibits

the

use

of

pois

ons

and

artif

icia

llig

ht, e

xcep

t w

hen

furb

eari

ng a

nim

als

have

been

tre

ed b

y ho

unds

.(M

O. C

OD

E R

EGS.

AN

N.

tit. 3

, § 1

0-7.

410)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und,

exce

pt fr

om 4

/1th

roug

h th

e en

d of

the

spri

ng t

urke

yhu

ntin

g se

ason

and

duri

ng t

he fi

rear

ms

deer

hun

ting

seas

on.

(MO

. CO

DE

REG

S. A

NN

.tit

. 3, §

10-

7.45

0)

Unl

imite

d. (M

O.

CO

DE

REG

S. A

NN.

tit. 3

, § 1

0-7.

450)

Trap

s sh

all h

ave

smoo

thor

rub

ber

jaw

s on

ly, a

ndm

ay in

clud

e fo

ot-h

old

trap

s, C

onib

ear-

type

trap

s w

ith s

peci

fied

rest

rict

ions

, foo

t-en

clos

ing-

type

trap

s,ca

ge-t

ype

trap

s, co

lony

trap

s w

ith s

peci

fied

dim

ensi

ons,

or s

nare

s se

tun

der

wat

er o

nly,

and

cabl

e re

stra

int

devi

ces

with

pre

scri

bed

perm

it.U

se o

f pitf

alls

, dea

dfal

ls,

snar

es s

et in

a d

ry la

ndse

t, an

d ne

ts a

repr

ohib

ited.

(M

O. C

OD

E

REG

S. A

NN. t

it. 3

, § 1

0-8.

510)

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/1

5 to

2/1

5. (

MO

.C

OD

E R

EGS.

AN

N. t

it.

3, §

10-

8.51

5)

Unl

imite

d.(M

O. C

OD

E

REG

S. A

NN.

tit. 3

, § 1

0-8.

515)

Allo

ws

a pr

oper

ty o

wne

r to

kill

wild

life

caus

ing

dam

age

to s

aid

prop

erty

with

out

perm

it by

shoo

ting

or t

rapp

ing;

othe

rm

etho

ds n

ot a

llow

ed e

xcep

t by

wri

tten

aut

hori

zatio

n of

the

dire

ctor

. (M

O. C

OD

E R

EGS.

AN

N. t

it.

3, §

10-

4.13

0)

MS

Pred

ator

yan

imal

s. (M

ISS.

CO

DE A

NN

. §49

-7-1

)

Allo

ws

firea

rms,

amm

uniti

on, p

rim

itive

wea

pons

, or

arch

ery

equi

pmen

t le

gal f

or u

sedu

ring

tha

t op

ense

ason

. Coy

ote

may

be

run,

cha

sed,

or

purs

ued

with

dog

s ex

cept

as

prov

ided

in §

49-

7-32

year

-rou

nd b

y lic

ense

d

Seas

on is

res

tric

ted

to t

he o

pen

hunt

ing

seas

ons

of a

ny g

ame

anim

al o

r bi

rd. (

MIS

S.C

OD

E AN

N. §

49-

7-31

)

NS

It is

ille

gal t

o tr

ap w

ith

the

aid

of b

ait,

reco

rdin

gsof

bir

d or

ani

mal

cal

ls, o

rel

ectr

ical

ly a

mpl

ified

imita

tions

of c

alls

of a

nyki

nd. (

MS

Wild

life

Fish

erie

s &

Par

ksw

ebsi

te)

The

tak

ing

of a

nyan

imal

or

anim

als

othe

r th

an b

eave

rsor

coy

ote

by t

he u

seof

a t

rap

or t

raps

isun

law

ful e

xcep

tdu

ring

the

tim

e th

ese

ason

is o

pen

for

the

taki

ng o

f fur

-be

arin

g an

imal

s.

NS

Allo

ws

land

owne

rs, a

gric

ultu

ral

leas

e ho

lder

s, o

r th

eir

desi

gnat

edag

ents

to

take

pre

dato

ry a

nim

als

year

-rou

nd o

n la

nds

owne

d by

them

. (M

ISS.

CO

DE A

NN. §

49-

7-31

)

Appendix 55

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

hunt

ers.

(MIS

S. C

OD

E

AN

N. §

49-

7-31

)(M

ISS.

CO

DE A

NN. §

49-7

-31)

MT

Pred

ator

.(M

ON

T. C

OD

E

AN

N. §

87-

2-10

1)

NS

NS

No

trap

ping

lice

nse

isre

quir

ed fo

r re

side

nts.

(Tra

ppin

g H

andb

ook,

p. 2

)

NS

NS

NS

Req

uire

s th

e de

part

men

t to

pay

boun

ty c

laim

s fo

r pr

edat

ory

anim

als

that

are

app

rove

d by

the

boar

d of

live

stoc

k. (

MO

NT. C

OD

E

AN

N. §

87-

1-20

6)

NC

NS

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

gun

s, bo

w &

arr

ow,

and

dogs

; pro

hibi

ts u

seof

art

ifici

al li

ght.

(N.C

.G

EN. S

TAT. §

113

-291

.1)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(N.C

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit.1

5A, r

. 10B

.021

9)

½ h

our

befo

resu

nris

e to

½ h

our

afte

r su

nset

. (N

.C.

GEN

. STA

T. §

113

-29

1.1)

Unl

imite

d. (N

.C.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit.

15A

, r. 1

0B.0

219)

Proh

ibits

use

of s

teel

-jaw

,le

ghol

d, a

nd C

onib

ear

trap

s un

less

the

y ar

esm

ooth

edg

ed, w

ithin

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons

and

have

bee

n se

t in

asp

ecifi

ed m

anne

r. (N

.C.

GEN

. STA

T. §

113

-291

.6)

Proh

ibits

use

of s

nare

.(N

.C. G

EN. S

TAT. §

113

-29

1.61

)

Seas

on v

arie

s; d

ates

betw

een

11/1

and

3/31

, dep

endi

ng o

nth

e co

unty

. (N

.C.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE t

it.15

A, r

. 10B

.030

2)

Unl

imite

d.(N

.C.

AD

MIN

.C

OD

E tit.

15A

, r.

10B.

0303

)

Allo

ws

the

com

mis

sion

to

issu

e a

perm

it to

a la

ndho

lder

to

take

wild

life

that

has

cau

sed

mor

eth

an $

50 in

dam

age

to h

is/h

erpr

oper

ty. (

N.C

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit.

15A

, r. 1

0B.0

106)

ND

Furb

eare

r.(N

.D. C

ENT.

CO

DE

§ 20

.1-

01-0

2)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

gun

s an

d ar

cher

yeq

uipm

ent;

proh

ibits

use

of a

rtifi

cial

ligh

t.(N

.D. 2

003

Smal

l Gam

e&

Fur

bear

er G

uide

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und;

and

may

be

hunt

edat

any

hou

r fr

om11

/22

to 3

/20

(dat

esm

ay c

hang

e ea

chye

ar).

(N.D

.Fu

rbea

rer

Gui

de)

NS

Esta

blis

hes

a co

yote

snar

ing

seas

on. (

N.D

.C

ENT. C

OD

E §

20.1

-07-

03.1

)

Legh

old,

Con

ibea

r, an

dsn

are

rest

rict

ions

with

resp

ect

to s

ize

and

plac

emen

t. (N

.D.

Furb

eare

r G

uide

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und;

allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

se o

fsn

ares

from

11/

22to

3/1

4. (

N.D

. 200

3Fu

rbea

rer

Gui

de)

NS

Allo

ws

a la

ndow

ner

or t

enan

t to

catc

h or

kill

any

wild

furb

eari

ngan

imal

com

mitt

ing

depr

edat

ions

on t

hat

pers

on’s

poul

try,

dom

estic

ani

mal

s, or

cro

ps. (

N.D

.C

ENT. C

OD

E §

20.1

-01-

04)

NE

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Any

farm

er o

r ra

nche

r ow

ning

or

oper

atin

g a

farm

or

ranc

h m

ayde

stro

y or

hav

e de

stro

yed

any

pred

ator

pre

ying

on

lives

tock

or

poul

try

or c

ausi

ng o

ther

agri

cultu

ral d

epre

datio

n on

land

owne

d or

con

trol

led

by h

im o

rhe

r w

ithou

t a

perm

it is

sued

by

the

com

mis

sion

. (N

EB. R

EV. S

TAT. §

37-5

59)


Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

NH

NS

Allo

ws

use

of a

ny le

gal

met

hod,

incl

udin

gar

tific

ial l

ight

, exc

ept

from

a m

otor

veh

icle

;bo

w &

arr

ow; a

ndre

stri

cted

use

of g

uns.

(N.H

. CO

DE A

DM

IN. R

.A

NN

. Fis

303

.09)

Seas

on is

½ h

our

befo

re s

unri

se t

o ½

hour

aft

er s

unse

t,ye

ar-r

ound

; allo

ws

nigh

t hu

ntin

g w

ith

the

land

owne

r’spe

rmis

sion

from

1/1

-3/

1. (N

.H. C

OD

E

AD

MIN

. R. A

NN

. Fis

303.

09)

Unl

imite

d.(N

.H.

Fish

& G

ame

web

site

)

Proh

ibits

use

of s

nare

s.(N

.H. R

EV. S

TAT. A

NN. §

207.

10)

Allo

ws

use

of a

ny le

gal

met

hod.

(N.H

. CO

DE

AD

MIN

. R. A

NN

. Fis

303

.09)

Res

tric

tions

on

use

ofC

onib

ear

trap

s. (N

.H.

CO

DE A

DM

IN. R

. AN

N. F

is30

3.16

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(N.H

. CO

DE A

DM

IN. R

.A

NN

. Fis

303

.09)

Unl

imite

d.(N

.H. F

ish

& G

ame

web

site

)

Allo

ws

com

mer

cial

gro

wer

sw

hose

cro

ps a

re b

eing

dam

aged

to s

ubm

it an

app

licat

ion

for

aw

ildlif

e de

pred

atio

n pe

rmit

toth

e ex

ecut

ive

dire

ctor

; dis

allo

ws

the

gran

ting

of a

per

mit

if th

ede

part

men

t w

ill s

uppl

y no

n-le

thal

met

hods

, and

unl

ess

ther

e is

subs

tant

ial d

amag

es; r

equi

res

that

the

exec

utiv

e di

rect

or e

stab

lish

the

date

s, tim

es, a

nd m

etho

ds fo

rth

e ta

king

. (N

.H. C

OD

E AD

MIN

. R.

AN

N. F

is. 3

04.0

4)

NJ

Gam

e. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

.7,

§ 2

5-10

.6)

Furb

eare

r. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

.7,

§ 2

5-5.

11)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs,

firea

rm, o

r bo

w &

arro

w (

dogs

ok

duri

ngfir

earm

dee

r se

ason

only

); pr

ohib

its u

se o

fdo

gs, a

llow

s us

e of

arti

ficia

l lig

ht, b

ow &

arro

w a

nd r

estr

icte

dus

e of

gun

s du

ring

spec

ial e

aste

rn c

oyot

ese

ason

. (N

.J. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

tit. 7

, § 2

5-5.

19)

½ h

our

befo

resu

nris

e to

½ h

our

afte

r su

nset

. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

. 7, §

25-5

.19)

Bow

& A

rrow

onl

y:Se

ason

run

s 10

/1/0

5to

11/

12/0

5 (v

arie

sea

ch y

ear)

. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

. 7, §

25-5

.19)

Fire

arm

or

Bow

&A

rrow

: Sea

son

runs

11/1

3/04

to

2/21

/05

& 1

1/12

/05

to 2

/20/

06 (

alte

rsea

ch y

ear)

. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

. 7, §

25-5

.19)

Spec

ial e

aste

rnco

yote

sea

son

runs

2/1/

05 t

o 2/

21/0

5an

d 2/

1/06

to 2

/20/

06(v

arie

s ea

ch y

ear)

.

Lim

it is

2. (

N.J.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit. 7

,§

25-5

.19)

Proh

ibits

set

ting

on la

ndof

Con

ibea

r or

kill

-typ

etr

aps;

proh

ibits

use

of

stee

l jaw

legh

old

trap

s;se

ts fo

rth

rest

rict

ions

for

the

use

of s

nare

s. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E ti

t. 7

, § 2

5-5.

12)

Seas

on r

uns

from

11/1

5 to

3/1

5. (N

.J.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E tit

. 7, §

25-5

.11)

Unl

imite

d.(N

.J.A

DM

IN.

CO

DE t

it. 7

,§

25-5

.11)

Farm

ers

or t

heir

age

nts

may

tra

pco

yote

by

law

ful p

roce

dure

s at

any

time

whe

n fo

und

dest

royi

ngpo

ultr

y, cr

ops,

or p

rope

rty

subj

ect

to s

tate

law

and

loca

lor

dina

nces

. (N

.J. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E ti

t.7,

§ 2

5-5.

11)

Allo

ws

prop

erty

ow

ners

and

farm

ers

to c

ontr

ol c

oyot

esca

usin

g da

mag

e by

law

ful

proc

edur

es a

t an

y tim

e. (

N.J.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit. 7

, § 2

5-5-

21)

Appendix 57

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

(N.J.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

tit.

7, §

25-

5.19

)

NM

Pred

ator

. (N

.M.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE t

it.19

, § 3

0.6.

7)

Unp

rote

cted

Furb

eare

r.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p.

54))

May

be

take

n w

ithdo

gs, f

irea

rms,

and

bow

& a

rrow

. (N

.M. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

tit.

19,

§ 1

9.32

.2)

NS

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 5

4)

May

be

take

n w

ith t

raps

and

snar

es; l

egho

ld a

ndsn

are

rest

rict

ions

with

resp

ect

to s

ize

and

plac

emen

t. (N

.M. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

tit. 1

9, §

19.

32.2

and

Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k, p

. 54)

NS

Unl

imite

d.(H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 5

4)

A la

ndow

ner,

less

ee, o

r em

ploy

eem

ay t

ake

or k

ill a

n an

imal

on

priv

ate

land

in w

hich

the

y ha

ve a

now

ners

hip

or le

aseh

old

inte

rest

that

pre

sent

s an

imm

edia

te t

hrea

tto

hum

an li

fe o

r an

imm

edia

teth

reat

of d

amag

e to

pro

pert

y,in

clud

ing

crop

s, pr

ovid

ed t

hat

the

killi

ng is

rep

orte

d to

the

Dep

artm

ent

of G

ame

and

Fish

with

in 2

4 ho

urs

and

befo

re t

here

mov

al o

f the

car

cass

of t

hean

imal

kill

ed. (

N.M

. STA

T. A

NN. §

17-2

-7.2

)

NV

Unp

rote

cted

.(N

EV. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

ch. 5

03, §

035)

A p

erso

n is

not

requ

ired

to

obta

in a

hunt

ing

licen

se o

rpe

rmit

to h

unt

unpr

otec

ted

wild

bir

dsor

mam

mal

s. (N

EV.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE c

h. 5

03, §

193)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(NEV

. AD

MIN

. CO

DE

ch.

503,

§ 0

90)

NS

Allo

ws

use

of s

teel

legh

old

trap

s w

ithsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s. (N

EV.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE c

h. 5

03, §

155)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(NEV

. AD

MIN

.C

OD

E ch

. 503

, § 0

90)

NS

Allo

ws

the

dire

ctor

to

issu

e a

perm

it to

frig

hten

, her

d, o

r ki

llw

ildlif

e if

it is

pro

ved

that

prop

erty

is b

eing

dam

aged

or

dest

roye

d or

is in

dan

ger

of b

eing

dam

aged

or

dest

roye

d, a

nd t

heda

mag

e ca

used

by

the

anim

al is

subs

tant

ial a

nd c

an b

e ab

ated

.(N

EV. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E ch

. 503

, § 7

10)

NY

Smal

l gam

e.(N

.Y. C

ON

SERV

.L A

W §

11-

0103

)

May

be

take

n by

long

bow

, gun

, use

of

rapt

ors,

and

any

othe

rle

gal m

etho

d. (

N.Y

.C

ON

SERV

. LA

W §

11-

0901

)

Proh

ibits

the

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht fr

om a

vehi

cle.

(N.Y

. CO

NSE

RV.

L AW

§ 1

1-09

01)

Seas

on r

uns

10/1

thro

ugh

the

last

Sund

ay in

Mar

ch;

year

-rou

nd in

wild

life

man

agem

ent u

nits

.(N

.Y. C

OM

P. C

OD

ES R

.&

REG

S. tit

. 6, §

2.2

0)

Allo

ws

the

taki

ng o

fco

yote

s at

any

hou

r,da

y or

nig

ht. (

N.Y

.C

ON

SERV

. LA

W §

11-

0909

)

Unl

imite

d. (N

.Y.

CO

NSE

RV. L

AW

§ 1

1-09

05)

Proh

ibits

use

of l

eg-

grip

ping

tra

ps w

ith t

eeth

;le

g-gr

ippi

ng t

raps

with

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons;

body

-gri

ppin

g tr

aps

with

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons;

snar

es; a

nd p

oiso

ns. (

N.Y

.C

ON

SERV

. LA

W §

11-

1101

)

Seas

on is

eith

erfr

om t

he la

stSa

turd

ay in

Oct

ober

to t

he S

unda

ycl

oses

t to

2/1

5 or

the

next

to

last

Satu

rday

in O

ctob

erto

the

Sun

day

clos

est

to 2

/15,

depe

ndin

g on

the

wild

life

man

agem

ent

unit.

(N.Y

. CO

MP.

CO

DES

R. &

REG

S. ti

t.6,

§ 6

.2)

Unl

imite

d.(N

.Y. C

OM

P.C

OD

ES R

. &R

EGS.

tit. 6

,§

6.2)

Allo

ws

an o

wne

r, oc

cupa

nt,

less

ee, o

r a

fam

ily m

embe

r or

empl

oyee

of s

uch

owne

r,oc

cupa

nt, o

r le

ssee

to

take

aco

yote

dam

agin

g pr

ivat

e pr

oper

tyat

any

tim

e in

any

man

ner.

(N.Y

.C

ON

SERV

. LA

W §

11-

0523

)


Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

Allo

ws

the

taki

ng o

fco

yote

s at

any

hou

r,da

y or

nig

ht. (

N.Y

.C

ON

SERV

. LA

W §

11-

0909

)

OH

Furb

eare

r &

Gam

e &

Wild

Qua

drup

eds.

(OH

IO A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 15

01:

31-1

-02)

Allo

ws

use

of g

uns,

bow

& a

rrow

, and

dog

s.(O

HIO

REV

. CO

DE A

NN

. §15

33.1

6)

Allo

ws

use

ofcr

ossb

ow. (

OH

IO A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 15

01: 3

1-15

-02)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(OH

IO A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

1501

: 31-

15-1

7)

Unl

imite

d. (O

HIO

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

§15

01: 3

1-15

-09)

Proh

ibits

use

of a

ny t

rap

othe

r th

an s

peci

fied

live

trap

s, bo

dy-g

ripp

ing

trap

s,le

ghol

d tr

aps,

and

snar

es;

sets

fort

h si

zere

stri

ctio

ns o

n al

l the

sem

etho

ds. (

OH

IO A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 15

01: 3

1-15

-09)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(OH

IO A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

1501

: 31-

15-1

1)

Unl

imite

d.(O

HIO

AD

MIN

.C

OD

E §

1501

: 31-

15-0

9)

Allo

ws

any

pers

on t

o tr

ap a

nan

imal

, exc

ept

whi

te-t

aile

d de

er,

blac

k be

ar, o

r w

ild t

urke

y, th

atha

s be

com

e a

nuis

ance

. (O

HIO

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

§ 15

01:3

1-15

-030

OK

Pred

ator

. (O

KLA

.S T

AT. A

NN. t

it.29

, § 2

-132

0

Allo

ws

use

of s

peci

fied

shot

guns

and

long

bow

s.(O

KLA

. STA

T. A

NN. t

it. 2

9,§

5-20

3.10

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

poi

sons

. (O

KLA

. STA

T.

AN

N. t

it. 2

9, §

5-3

010

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht o

r an

ysi

ght

dog

to t

ake

coyo

tes

with

in t

hepe

riod

of d

ark

toda

ylig

ht. (

OK

LA. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 80

0:25

-7-3

0

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(OK

LA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

800:

25-7

-600

Unl

imite

d. (O

KLA

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

800:

25-7

-61)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

se o

fbo

x tr

aps

and

spec

ified

type

s of

legh

old

trap

s;pr

ohib

its u

se o

f sna

res

and

dead

falls

. (O

KLA

. STA

T.

AN

N. t

it. 2

9, §

5-5

02)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(OK

LA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

800:

25-7

-60)

Unl

imite

d.(O

KFu

rbea

rer

Gui

de)

Allo

ws

pers

ons

to “

cont

rol”

coyo

tes

with

or

with

out

anu

isan

ce w

ildlif

e co

ntro

l per

mit.

(OK

LA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

800:

25-3

7-5)

OR

Pred

ator

y an

dU

npro

tect

ed.

(OR. A

DM

IN. R

.63

5-05

0-00

50)

Pred

ator

y. (O

R.

AD

MIN

. R. 6

35-

045-

0002

)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs.

(OR. A

DM

IN. R

. 635

-050

-00

45)

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht. (

OR.

AD

MIN

. R. 6

35-0

65-

0745

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(OR. A

DM

IN. R

. 635

-05

0-01

65)

NS

Proh

ibits

use

of l

egho

ldan

d in

stan

t-ki

ll tr

aps

with

teet

h or

exc

eedi

ngsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s;al

low

s us

e of

sna

res.

(OR.

AD

MIN

. R. 6

35-0

50-0

045)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(OR. A

DM

IN. R

. 635

-05

0-01

65)

NS

Exem

pts

land

owne

rs fr

om h

avin

gto

mar

k tr

aps

or s

nare

s se

t on

thei

r la

nd. (

OR. A

DM

IN. R

. 635

-05

0-00

45)

Exem

pts

land

owne

rs a

nd le

ssee

ski

lling

pre

dato

rs o

n th

eir

land

from

a p

rohi

bitio

n di

sallo

win

g

Appendix 59

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

use

of c

ente

r fir

e an

d m

uzzl

elo

adin

g ri

fles.

(OR. A

DM

IN. R

. 635

-06

5-07

40)

PAFu

rbea

rer.

(58

P A. C

OD

E §

133.

5)

Proh

ibits

use

of

spec

ified

sho

tgun

s. (5

8P A

. CO

DE

§ 14

1.6)

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht, o

ther

than

tha

t or

dina

rily

carr

ied

on t

he p

erso

n.(5

8 P A

. CO

DE

§ 14

1.6

and

§ 14

1.7)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(58

P A. C

OD

E §

139.

4)

May

be

take

n an

yho

ur, d

ay o

r ni

ght.

(58

P A. C

OD

E §

141.

4)

Unl

imite

d. (5

8 P A

.C

OD

E §

139.

4)Pr

ohib

its s

ettin

g sn

ares

on la

nd; p

rohi

bits

bod

y-gr

ippi

ng t

raps

exc

eedi

ngsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s; a

ndca

ge o

r bo

x tr

aps

capa

ble

of c

atch

ing

mor

e th

an o

nefu

rbea

rer

at a

tim

e. (

58P A

. CO

DE

§ 14

1.6)

Seas

on r

uns

from

10/1

9 to

2/2

1. (

58P A

. CO

DE

§ 13

9.4)

May

be

take

n an

yho

ur, d

ay o

r ni

ght.

(58

P A. C

OD

E §

141.

4)

Unl

imite

d.(5

8 P A

.C

OD

E §

139.

4)

Any

per

son

may

kill

any

gam

e or

wild

life

that

has

act

ually

eng

aged

in t

he m

ater

ial d

estr

uctio

n of

culti

vate

d cr

ops,

frui

t tr

ees,

vege

tabl

es, l

ives

tock

, pou

ltry,

orbe

ehiv

es. (

P A. S

TAT. A

NN. t

it. 3

4, §

2121

)

A p

erso

n is

aut

hori

zed

to u

sepe

stic

ide

prod

ucts

reg

iste

red

and

labe

led

as a

ppro

ved

for

wild

life

cont

rol b

y th

e D

epar

tmen

t of

Agr

icul

ture

, to

cont

rol w

ildlif

ede

stro

ying

or

dam

agin

g cr

ops.

(58

P A. C

OD

E §

141.

2)

RI

Furb

eare

r. (R

.I.G

EN. L

AW

S §

20-

16-1

)

Proh

ibits

spe

cifie

dsh

otgu

ns a

nd r

ifles

. (R

.I.G

EN. L

AW

S §

20-1

3-13

)

Seas

on is

½ h

our

befo

re s

unri

se t

o ½

hour

aft

er s

unse

t,ye

ar-r

ound

. (R

.I.C

OD

E R

. 12

080

005)

NS

Proh

ibits

use

of s

nare

san

d po

ison

. (R

.I. G

EN.

L AW

S §

20-1

6-6)

Proh

ibits

use

of s

teel

-jaw

legh

old

trap

s un

less

spe

cial

perm

it is

gra

nted

to

ala

ndow

ner

to u

se a

gain

stan

ani

mal

nui

sanc

e. (

R.I.

GEN

. LA

WS

§20-

16-8

)

Allo

ws

use

of C

onib

ear

trap

s w

ith s

peci

fied

dim

ensi

ons.

(R.I.

CO

DE R

.12

080

005

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(R

.I. C

OD

E R

.12

080

005

)

NS

Allo

ws

land

owne

rs, l

esse

es o

rem

ploy

ees

of la

ndow

ners

or

less

ees

to k

ill o

n th

e pe

rson

’spr

emis

es a

ny fu

rbea

rer

that

isw

orry

ing,

wou

ndin

g, or

kill

ing

dom

estic

ani

mal

s or

live

stoc

k, o

rde

stro

ying

cro

ps, o

r ca

usin

g cl

ear

and

imm

edia

te e

cono

mic

dam

age

to a

ny p

rope

rty

belo

ngin

g to

tha

tpe

rson

. (R

.I. G

EN. L

AW

S §

20-1

6-2)

SCPr

edat

ory

Ani

mal

. (S.

C.

CO

DE A

NN. §

50-1

1-11

45, b

yim

plic

atio

n)

Coy

otes

may

be

hunt

ed a

t ni

ght;

how

ever

, the

y m

ay n

otbe

hun

ted

with

artif

icia

l lig

hts

exce

ptw

hen

tree

d or

corn

ered

with

dog

s; or

with

buc

ksho

t or

any

shot

larg

er t

han

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(S.C

. Hun

ting

Han

dboo

k, p

. 30)

Allo

ws

hunt

ing

ofco

yote

s at

nig

ht.

(S.C

. CO

DE A

NN

. §50

-11-

710)

NS

Allo

ws

use

of fo

otho

ldtr

aps

with

res

tric

tions

;C

onib

ear

trap

s in

wat

er;

and

live

trap

s m

ay b

e us

edst

atew

ide.

All

othe

r tr

aps

are

unla

wfu

l.(S

.C. C

OD

E AN

N. §

50-

11-

2460

)

Seas

on r

uns

1/1

to3/

1. (

S.C

. Tra

ppin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 2

)

NS

Allo

ws

a la

ndow

ner

or le

ssee

with

an

encl

osur

e fo

r ru

nnin

gra

bbits

with

dog

s to

tra

p a

coyo

te w

ith a

cag

e tr

ap w

ithin

the

encl

osur

e. (

S.C

. CO

DE A

NN

. §50

-11-

1145

)

Whe

n it

appe

ars

that

coy

otes

are

dest

royi

ng b

irds

, pou

ltry,

pigs

,


Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

num

ber

four

or

any

rifle

am

mun

ition

larg

erth

an a

tw

enty

-tw

ori

mfir

e. (

S.C

. CO

DE A

NN

.§

50-1

1-71

0)

The

re a

re n

o w

eapo

nsre

stri

ctio

ns fo

r hu

ntin

gco

yote

s on

pri

vate

land

s st

atew

ide

wit

hex

cept

ions

in w

ildlif

em

anag

emen

t ar

eas

and

duri

ng c

erta

in h

untin

gse

ason

s. (S

.C. H

untin

gH

andb

ook,

p. 3

0)

lam

bs, o

r ot

her

prop

erty

in a

nyco

unty

or

ther

e is

an

appa

rent

epid

emic

of r

abie

s in

any

cou

nty,

the

Dep

artm

ent,

upon

wri

tten

requ

est

of t

he le

gisl

ativ

ede

lega

tion

of a

ny s

uch

coun

ty,

shal

l dec

lare

an

open

sea

son

onco

yote

s, w

ith t

he u

se o

f fir

earm

sfo

r a

desi

gnat

ed p

erio

d of

tim

e.(S

.C. C

OD

E AN

N. §

50-

11-1

080)

Dep

reda

tion

perm

its a

re a

vaila

ble

for

killi

ng c

oyot

es y

ear-

roun

d.(S

.C. D

ept.

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

web

site

)

SDFu

rbea

rer

&Pr

edat

or. (

S.D

.C

OD

IFIE

D L

AW

S §

41-1

-1)

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht e

xcep

tth

at la

ndow

ners

or

occu

pant

s m

ay u

sear

tific

ial l

ight

on

thei

row

n la

nd t

o hu

ntco

yote

s du

ring

the

hunt

ing

seas

on. (

S.D

.C

OD

IFIE

D L

AW

S §

41-8

-17

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(S.D

. CO

DIF

IED L

AW

S §

41-8

-20)

Unl

imite

d. (S

DG

ame,

Fis

h an

dPa

rks

web

site

)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

se o

fsp

ecifi

ed s

nare

s. (S

.D.

AD

MIN

. R. 4

1:08

:02:

05)

Proh

ibits

set

ting

on la

ndbo

dy-g

ripp

ing

or k

ill-t

ype

trap

s ex

ceed

ing

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons.

(S.D

. AD

MIN

.R

. 1:0

8:02

:06)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(S.D

. CO

DIF

IED L

AW

S §

41-8

-20)

Unl

imite

d.(S

D G

ame,

Fish

and

Park

sw

ebsi

te)

Allo

ws

boun

ties

to b

e pa

id fo

rea

ch c

oyot

e ki

lled.

(S.

D. C

OD

IFIE

D

LAW

S §

41-3

6-15

and

§ 4

1-36

-37)

Allo

ws

the

depa

rtm

ent

to is

sue

ade

pred

atio

n pe

rmit

tola

ndow

ners

who

are

expe

rien

cing

doc

umen

ted

depr

edat

ion

by c

oyot

es a

nd w

hoar

e op

erat

ing

agri

cultu

ral o

rgr

azin

g la

nd. (

S.D

. AD

MIN

. R.

41:0

6:46

:06)

TN

Furb

eare

r.(T

ENN

. CO

DE

AN

N. §

70-

1-10

1)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs;

rest

rict

ed u

se o

f gun

s;pr

ohib

its u

se o

fpo

ison

ous

arro

ws;

artif

icia

l lig

ht; a

ndcr

ossb

ows

(dur

ing

arch

ery-

only

sea

son)

.(2

004

TN

Hun

ting

&Tr

appi

ng G

uide

)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(200

4 T

N H

untin

g &

Trap

ping

Gui

de)

Unl

imite

d. (2

004

TN

Hun

ting

&Tr

appi

ng G

uide

)

Proh

ibits

use

of s

nare

s in

spec

ified

cou

ntie

s. (T

ENN.

CO

DE A

NN

. § 7

0-1-

120)

Allo

ws

use

of li

ve t

raps

,st

eel-j

aw le

ghol

d, in

stan

t-ki

ll, s

nare

s, an

d cu

shio

nho

ld w

ith r

estr

ictio

ns.

(200

4 T

N H

untin

g &

Trap

ping

Gui

de)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(200

4 T

N H

untin

g &

Trap

ping

Gui

de)

Unl

imite

d.(2

004

TN

Hun

ting

&Tr

appi

ngG

uide

)

Allo

ws

owne

rs o

f lan

d to

des

troy

any

wild

ani

mal

s th

at a

rede

stro

ying

pro

pert

y up

on s

uch

land

s. (T

ENN

. CO

DE A

NN. §

70-

4-11

5)

Appendix 61

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

TX

Non

gam

e. (T

EX.

P AR

KS &

WIL

D.

CO

DE A

NN

. §67

.001

)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

spe

cifie

d cr

ossb

ows

and

use

of s

peci

fied

arch

ery

equi

pmen

t;pr

ohib

its u

se o

fpo

ison

ous

or e

xplo

sive

arro

ws;

allo

ws

use

offir

earm

s w

ithre

stri

ctio

ns. (

31 T

EX.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

§ 65

.11)

Coy

otes

may

be

hunt

ed b

y an

y la

wfu

lm

eans

or

met

hods

on

priv

ate

prop

erty

. Pub

lichu

ntin

g la

nds

may

hav

ere

stri

ctio

ns. (

2004

-20

05 O

utdo

or A

nnua

l,p.

69)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(200

4-20

05 O

utdo

orA

nnua

l, p.

69)

NS

NS

NS

NS

Stat

es t

hat

a co

yote

tha

t is

atta

ckin

g, a

bout

to

atta

ck o

r ha

sre

cent

ly a

ttac

ked

lives

tock

or

dom

estic

ani

mal

s m

ay b

e ki

lled

byan

y pe

rson

witn

essi

ng t

he a

ttac

kor

the

per

son

who

se a

nim

als

have

bee

n at

tack

ed; a

llow

spe

rson

s w

ho fi

nd s

uch

a co

yote

on h

is/h

er p

rope

rty

to c

atch

and

deliv

er t

he c

oyot

e to

loca

l ani

mal

cont

rol.

(TEX

. PA

RK

S &

WIL

D. C

OD

E

AN

N. §

822

.013

)

Allo

ws

spec

ific

coun

ties

to p

aybo

untie

s fo

r co

yote

s. (T

EX. P

AR

KS

& W

ILD. C

OD

E AN

N. §

825

.033

)

Allo

ws

the

com

mis

sion

ers

cour

tof

any

giv

en c

ount

y to

pur

chas

epo

ison

and

furn

ish

it to

citi

zens

of t

he c

ount

y to

kill

coy

otes

.(T

EX. H

EALT

H &

SA

FET

Y C

OD

E AN

N. §

825.

021)

UT

Pred

ator

. (U

TAH

CO

DE A

NN. §

4-

23-3

)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

The

Agr

icul

tura

l and

Wild

life

Prev

entio

n Bo

ard

may

spe

cify

boun

ties

on d

esig

nate

d pr

edat

ory

anim

als

and

reco

mm

end

proc

edur

es fo

r th

e pa

ymen

t of

boun

ty c

laim

s, re

com

men

dbo

unty

dis

tric

ts, a

nd r

ecom

men

dpe

rson

s no

t au

thor

ized

to

rece

ive

boun

ty. (

UTA

H C

OD

E AN

N.

§ 4-

23-5

)

VAN

uisa

nce

Spec

ies.

(4 V

A.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

§15

-20-

160)

Nui

sanc

e sp

ecie

s “ca

nbe

kill

ed a

t an

y tim

ean

d in

any

man

ner

that

is le

gal u

nder

sta

te a

ndlo

cal l

aws.”

(VA

Dep

t.of

Gam

e &

Inla

ndFi

sher

ies

web

site

)

Proh

ibits

use

of

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und

on p

riva

te la

nd; m

aybe

res

tric

tions

on

som

e pu

blic

land

s –

refe

r to

Nat

iona

l-Fo

rest

-Gam

eD

epar

tmen

tR

egul

atio

ns. (

VAD

ept.

of G

ame

&

NS

Nui

sanc

e w

ildlif

e “c

an b

eki

lled

at a

ny t

ime

and

inan

y m

anne

r th

at is

lega

lun

der

stat

e an

d lo

cal

law

s.” (

VA D

ept.

of G

ame

& In

land

Fis

heri

esw

ebsi

te)

Proh

ibits

use

of b

ody-

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(VA

Dep

t. of

Gam

e &

Inla

ndFi

sher

ies

web

site

)

NS

Allo

ws

coun

ties

to p

ay b

ount

ies

for

coyo

tes.

(VA. C

OD

E AN

N. §

15.2

-926

.1)


Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

pois

onou

s or

exp

losi

vear

row

s. (4

VA. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 15

-40-

50)

Proh

ibits

use

of p

oiso

n.(4

VA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

15-4

0-50

)Allo

ws

use

ofdo

gs. (

VA D

ept.

ofG

ame

& In

land

Fish

erie

s w

ebsi

te)

Inla

nd F

ishe

ries

web

site

)gr

ippi

ng t

raps

with

jaw

spre

ad in

exc

ess

of 7

½in

ches

exc

ept

in w

ater

. (4

VA. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

15-4

0-19

0)

Proh

ibits

set

ting

abov

egr

ound

any

ste

el-ja

wle

ghol

d tr

ap w

ith t

eeth

or w

ith a

jaw

spr

ead

exce

edin

g 6½

inch

es. (

4V

A. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

15-4

0-21

0)

Proh

ibits

dea

dfal

ls; a

llow

sus

e of

sna

res

not

exce

edin

g sp

ecifi

eddi

men

sion

s w

ith w

ritt

enpe

rmis

sion

from

the

land

owne

r. (4

VA. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 15

-40-

220)

VT

Furb

eare

r. (V

T.

S TAT

. AN

N. t

it.10

, § 4

001)

Allo

ws

use

of fi

rear

ms

with

res

tric

tions

and

dogs

. (V

T. S

TAT. A

NN. t

it.10

, § 4

701)

Proh

ibits

use

of

artif

icia

l lig

ht. (

VT. S

TAT.

AN

N. t

it. 1

0, §

470

2)

Proh

ibits

use

of

pois

ons.

(VT. S

TAT. A

NN.

tit. 1

0A, §

43)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(VT. S

TAT. A

NN. t

it.10

A, §

41)

Unl

imite

d. (V

T.

S TA

T. A

NN. t

it. 1

0A,

§ 41

)

Proh

ibits

use

of s

nare

s.(V

T. S

TAT. A

NN

. tit.

10,

§47

06)

Proh

ibits

set

ting

on la

ndtr

aps

with

tee

th a

ndbo

dy-g

ripp

ing

trap

sex

ceed

ing

spec

ified

dim

ensi

ons.

(VT. S

TAT. A

NN.

tit. 1

0A, §

44)

Seas

on r

uns

from

four

th S

atur

day

inO

ctob

er t

o 12

/31.

(VT. S

TAT. A

NN. t

it.10

A, §

41)

Unl

imite

d.(V

T. S

TAT.

AN

N. t

it.10

A, §

41)

Exem

pts

a la

ndow

ner

and

the

land

owne

r’s e

mpl

oyee

s, te

nant

s,an

d ca

reta

kers

from

law

sgo

vern

ing

furb

eare

rs w

hen

they

are

actin

g to

pro

tect

the

irpr

oper

ty fr

om d

amag

e. (V

T. S

TAT.

AN

N. t

it. 1

0, §

482

8)

WA

NS

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

arc

hery

equ

ipm

ent;

proh

ibits

use

of

cros

sbow

s. (W

ASH

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

232-

12-

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und

- cl

osed

9/1

5 to

11/3

0 in

spe

cifie

dw

ilder

ness

are

as.

(WA

SH. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

Unl

imite

d. (W

ASH

.A

DM

IN. C

OD

E §

232-

28-3

41:

Proh

ibits

use

of s

teel

-jaw

legh

old

trap

s, ne

ck s

nare

s,or

oth

er b

ody-

grip

ping

trap

s; al

low

s th

e di

rect

orof

the

dep

artm

ent

to

Seas

on is

from

10/

1to

3/1

5. (

WA

Fis

han

d W

ildlif

e w

ebsi

te)

NS

Allo

ws

any

land

owne

r or

imm

edia

te fa

mily

mem

ber

to t

rap

or k

ill w

ithou

t a

licen

se w

ildan

imal

s th

at a

re d

amag

ing

crop

s,do

mes

tic a

nim

als,

or fo

wl.

(WA

SH.

Appendix 63

cont

inue

d on

follo

win

g pa

ge

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

054)

Allo

ws

use

of d

ogs

duri

ng s

peci

fied

peri

ods.

(WA

SH. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

§ 23

2-28

-341

)

§ 23

2-28

-341

)au

thor

ize

use

of p

adde

dle

ghol

d tr

aps

and

non-

stra

nglin

g sn

ares

. (W

ASH

.R

EV. C

OD

E §

77.1

5.19

4)

WI

Furb

eare

r. (W

IS.

S TAT

. AN

N. §

29.0

01)

Proh

ibits

hun

ting

with

any

mea

ns o

ther

tha

nsp

ecifi

ed g

uns

and

bow

& a

rrow

. (W

IS. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

NR

§ 1

0.09

)

Year

-rou

nd (

som

ecl

osed

per

iods

insp

ecifi

ed a

reas

).(W

IS. A

DM

IN. C

OD

E

NR

§ 1

0.01

)

Unl

imite

d. (W

IS.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

NR

§10

.01)

Proh

ibits

use

of t

raps

with

tee

th u

nles

s un

der

wat

er, a

nd C

onib

ear

and

stee

l jaw

ed t

raps

exce

edin

g sp

ecifi

eddi

men

sion

s; al

low

sre

stri

cted

use

of s

nare

san

d ca

ble

rest

rain

ts. (

WIS.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

NR

§ 1

0.13

)

Vari

ous

peri

ods

star

ting

the

Satu

rday

nea

rest

10/1

7 or

10/

28 t

o 2/

15. (

WIS. A

DM

IN.

CO

DE

NR

§ 1

0.01

)

May

tra

p fr

om 4

AM

to 8

PM

. (W

IS.

AD

MIN

. CO

DE

NR

§10

.13)

Unl

imite

d.(W

IS.

AD

MIN

.C

OD

E N

R§

10.0

1)

Allo

ws

the

owne

r or

occ

upan

t of

any

land

, or

any

mem

ber

of t

hefa

mily

, to

trap

or

hunt

coy

otes

on

the

land

with

out

a lic

ense

with

limit

ed r

estr

icti

ons.

(WIS. S

TAT.

AN

N. §

29.

337)

WV

NS

Allo

ws

use

of a

mbe

rco

lore

d ar

tific

ial l

ight

whe

n hu

ntin

g co

yote

.(W

. VA. C

OD

E AN

N. §

20-

2-5)

Proh

ibits

use

of

pois

ons

and

auto

mat

icfir

earm

s. (W

. VA. C

OD

E

ST. R

. § 5

8-47

-3)

Allo

ws

rest

rict

ed u

seof

arc

hery

equ

ipm

ent;

proh

ibits

use

of

auto

mat

ic fi

rear

ms

and

cros

sbow

s. (W

V D

ept.

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

web

site

)

Unl

imit

ed. (

W. V

A.

CO

DE

ST. R

. § 5

8-45

-8)

Proh

ibits

use

of C

onib

ear

trap

s on

land

; tra

ps w

ithte

eth;

dea

dfal

ls; a

ndva

riou

s tr

aps

exce

edin

gsp

ecifi

ed d

imen

sion

s;al

low

s fo

ot s

nare

s w

ithm

axim

um lo

op o

f 6½

inch

es; a

llow

s sn

ares

inw

ater

; pro

hibi

ts n

eck/

body

sna

res

on la

nd. (

W.

VA. C

OD

E ST

. R. §

58-

53-3

)

Seas

on is

from

the

first

Sat

urda

y in

Nov

embe

r th

roug

hth

e la

st d

ay in

Febr

uary

. (W

. VA.

CO

DE

ST. R

. § 5

8-45

-9)

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(W. V

A. C

OD

E ST

. R. §

58-4

5-7)

Unl

imite

d.(W

. VA.

CO

DE

ST. R

§ 58

-45-

10)

Dec

lare

s th

at w

hen

a w

ild a

nim

alis

dam

agin

g cu

ltiva

ted

crop

s, fr

uit

tree

s, co

mm

erci

al n

urse

ries

,ho

meo

wne

r’s t

rees

, shr

ubbe

ry, o

rve

geta

ble

gard

ens,

the

land

owne

ror

less

ee c

an s

ubm

it a

repo

rt t

oth

e de

part

men

t an

d th

e di

rect

orm

ay is

sue

a pe

rmit

auth

oriz

ing

the

subm

itee

to k

ill t

he a

nim

al.

(W. V

A. C

OD

E AN

N. §

20-

2-15

)

WY

Pred

ator

yan

imal

. (W

YO.

S TAT

. AN

N. §

23-

1-10

1)

Allo

ws

pred

ator

yan

imal

s to

be

take

n in

any

man

ner

exce

pt t

hat

use

of a

utom

atic

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(WYO

. STA

T. A

NN. §

23-3

-103

)

NS

Allo

ws

pred

ator

y an

imal

sto

be

take

n in

any

man

ner

exce

pt t

hat

use

of s

nare

sis

res

tric

ted.

(W

YO. S

TAT.

Seas

on is

yea

r-ro

und.

(WYO

. STA

T.

AN

N. §

23-

3-10

3)

NS

Each

pre

dato

ry a

nim

al d

istr

ict

boar

d m

ay a

dopt

rul

es a

ndre

gula

tions

nec

essa

ry fo

r th

epu

rpos

e of

con

trol

ling

pred

ator

y

REV

. CO

DE

§ 77

.36.

030)


Key

NS

= N

ot S

peci

fied

Appe

ndix

Appe

ndix

ST

Cla

ssH

unti

ngT

rapp

ing

Dep

reda

tio

nM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

itM

eth

od

s o

f Tak

eS

easo

ns

Bag

Lim

it

cont

inue

d fr

om p

revi

ous

page

firea

rms

and

pois

ons

ispr

ohib

ited.

(WYO

. STA

T.

AN

N. §

23-

3-10

3)

AN

N. §

23-

3-10

3)an

imal

s. Ea

ch b

oard

is a

utho

rize

dto

pay

bou

ntie

s fo

r pr

edat

ory

anim

als.

(WYO

. STA

T. A

NN

. § 1

1-6-

206)

hunting in grasses COVERS

Documents

Transcript of hunting in grasses COVERS