CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 325Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife ManagementAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Coyote Depredation Control: An Interface between Biology and Management

Open access
Knowlton, Frederick F., Gese, Eric M., Jaeger, Michael M.·1999·Journal of Range Management
DOI 10.2307/4003765
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Predation by coyotes (Canis latrans) on livestock continues to plague producers in the United States. Agricultural interests are concerned about coyote predation because sheep inventories in the U.S.have declined >85% in the past 60 years, with a 25% decline between 1991 and 1996. This decline in sheep numbers has been attributed to low economic returns among producers, with coyote predation cited as a major causative factor. Generalizations about the magnitude and nature of depredations can be misleading because of the varied nature of sheep operations, including size of operations, differences in management, and environmental circumstances surrounding individual operations. Coyote depredation rates appear to be influenced by sheep management practices, coyote biology and behavior, environmental factors, and depredation management programs. Most nonlethal depredation control techniques fall within the operational purview of the producers. The major controversy regarding depredation management focuses on programs that remove coyotes to prevent or curtail predation on domestic stock, especially on public lands. Differences in the magnitude, nature, and history of problems caused by coyotes, as well as the circumstances in which they occur, dictates a need for a variety of techniques and programs to resolve problems. The resolution of coyote depredation upon livestock remains controversial for producers, resource managers, and the general public. Because various segments of society attach different values to coyotes, resolution of depredations should use management programs that integrate the social, legal, economic, and biological aspects of the animals and the problem. Preferred solutions should involve procedures that solve problems as effectively, efficiently, and economically as possible in the least intrusive and most benign ways. Predation management requires a partnership among producers and wildlife managers to tailor programs to specific damage situations so the most appropriate techniques can be selected. This paper attempts to clarify the issues surrounding depredation management, synthesize past and current research, and provide information to resource managers associated with coyote depredation management. This synthesis integrates current understandings of coyote biology and behavior, the nature of depredations upon sheep producing enterprises, and the merits of various depredation control strategies and techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/4003765

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Coyotes are a predatory species and often invoke fear-whether that be loss of life, livelihood, or economic gain.

    “Coyotes are a predatory species and often invoke fear --whether that be loss of life, livelihood, or economic gain (Knowlton et al., 1999;Elliot et al., 2016).”

    From Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs (2024) · cites this paper as Knowlton et al., 1999

    The Abstract describes coyotes as predators and says agricultural interests are concerned about their predation on livestock. “Coyote Depredations on Livestock” says producers report losses that can threaten their enterprises’ economic viability. The paper does not support the broader claim that coyotes often evoke fear of loss of human life; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 107 · Cited by 325

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Andelt, W.F. 1987. Coyote predation, p. 128-140. In: M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch (eds.), Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natur. Resour. and the Ontario Trappers Assoc.
  2. In: P. R. Krausman (ed.), Rangeland wildlife. Soc. Range Manage., Denver, Colo.
  3. Balser, D.S. 1974. An overview of predator- livestock problems with emphasis on live- stock losses. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. 39:292-298.
  4. Beasom, S.L. 1974. Intensive short-term predator removal as a game management tool. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. 39:230-240.
  5. Berg, W.E. and R.A. Chesness. 1978. Ecology of coyotes in northern Minnesota, p. 229-247. In: M. Bekoff (ed.), Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York, N.Y. Black, H.L. and J.S. Green. 1984. Navajo use of mixed-breed dogs for management of predators. J. Range Manage. 38:11-45
  6. Bomford, M. and P.H. O'Brien. 1990. Sonic deterrents in animal damage control: a review of device tests and effectiveness. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:411-422.
  7. Brawley, K.C. 1977. Domestic sheep mor- tality during and after tests of several predator control methods. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula, Mont.
  8. Burns, R.J. and G.E. Connolly. 1980. Lithium chloride bait aversion did not influence prey killing by coyotes. Vert. Pest Conf. 9:200-204.
  9. Burns, R.J. and J.R. Mason. 1997. Effectiveness of Vichos non-lethal collars in deterring coyote attacks on sheep. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 17:204-206.
  10. Burns, R.J., G.E. Connolly, and P.J. Savarie. 1988. Large livestock protection collars effective against coyotes. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 13:215-219.
  11. Camenzind, F.J. 1978. Behavioral ecology of coyotes on the National Elk Refuge, Jackson, Wyoming, p. 267-294. In: M. Bekoff (ed.), Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York, N.Y Cavalcanti, S.M.C. 1997. Evaluation of physical and behavioral traits of llamas (Lama glama) associated with aggressive- ness toward sheep-threatening canids.
  12. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  13. Clark, K.A. and P.J. Wilson. 1995. The coyote's role in a rabies epidemic, p. 41-45. In: D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the southwest: a com- pendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Austin, Tex.
  14. Conner, M.M. 1995. Identifying patterns of coyote predation on sheep on a northern California ranch. M.S. Thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif.
  15. Connolly, G.E. 1978. Predator control and coyote populations: a review of simulation models, p. 327-345. In: M. Bekoff (ed.), Coyotes: biology, behavior, and manage- ment. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
  16. Connolly, G.E. 1992. Sheep and goat losses to predators in the United States. Proc. East. Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 5:75-82.
  17. Connolly, G.E. 1993. Livestock protection collars in the United States, 1988-1993. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop 11:25-33.
  18. Connolly, G.E. 1995. The effects of control on coyote populations: another look, p. 23-29. In: D.Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the southwest:a com- pendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Austin, Tex.
  19. Connolly, G.E. and R.J. Burns. 1990. Efficacy of compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars for killing coyotes that attack sheep. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 14:269-276.
  20. Connolly, G.E. and B.W. O'Gara. 1987. Aerial hunting takes sheep-killing coyotes in western Montana. Proc. Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop. 8:184-188.
  21. Coolahan, C. 1990. The use of dogs and calls to take coyotes around dens and rest- ing areas. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 14:260-262.
  22. Coppinger, R., J. Lorenz, and L. Coppinger. 1983. Introducing livestock guarding dogs to sheep and goat produc- ers. Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Control Conf. 1:129-132.
  23. Cypher, B.L. and J.H. Scrivner. 1992 Coyote control to protect endangered San Joaquin kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves, California. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 15:42-47.
  24. DeLiberto, T.J., M. R. Conover, E. M. Gese, F.F. Knowlton, R.J. Mason, L. Miller, R.H. Schmidt, and M. Holland. 1998. Fertility control in coyotes: is it a potential management tool? Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 18:144-149.
  25. Fall, M.W. 1990. Control of coyote depre- dation on livestock -progress in research and development. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 14:245-251.
  26. Gantz, G.F. 1990. Seasonal movement pat- terns of coyotes in the Bear River Mountains of Utah and Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  27. Green, J.S. and R.A. Woodruff. 1987. Livestock-guarding dogs for predator con- trol, p. 62-68. In: J. S. Green (ed.), Protecting livestock from coyotes. USDA Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Sheep Exp. Sta., Dubois, Ida.
  28. Green, J.S., F.R. Henderson, and M.D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes, p. C51-C76. In: S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson (eds.), Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
  29. Harris, S. and G. Saunders. 1993. The con- trol of canid populations. Symp. Zool. Soc. London 65:441-464.
  30. Henke, D.E. 1995. Effects of coyote control on their prey: a review, p. 35-40. In: D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the southwest: a compendium of our knowl- edge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Austin, Tex.
  31. Henne, F.R. 1975. Domestic sheep mortality on a western Montana ranch. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula, Mont.
  32. In: R. L. Phillips and C. Jonkel (eds.), Proc. 1975 Predator Symp. Montana Forest and Conservation Exp. Sta., School of Forestry, Univ. Montana, Missoula, Mont.
  33. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  34. Hilton, H. 1978. Systematics and ecology of the eastern coyote, p. 209-228. In: M. Bekoff (ed.), Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
  35. Hoffman, S.W. 1979. Coyote-prey relation- ships in Curlew Valley during a period of low jackrabbit density. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  36. Hoover, S. 1996. Effectiveness of volatile trigeminal irritants at reducing egg con- sumption by mammalian predators: an experimental analysis. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  37. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada, Reno, Nev.
  38. Knowlton, F.F. and E.M. Gese. 1995. Coyote population processes revisited, p. 1-6. In: D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the southwest: a com- pendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Austin, Tex.
  39. Knowlton, F.F. and L.C. Stoddart. 1983. Coyote population mechanics: another look, p. 93-111. In: F. L. Bunnell, D. S. Eastman, and J. M. Peek (eds.), Symposium on natur- al regulation of wildlife populations. Forest, Wildl., and Range Exp. Station, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, Ida.
  40. Knowlton, F. F. and L. C. Stoddart. 1992. Some observations from two coyote-prey studies, p. 101-121. In: A. Boer (ed.), Ecology and Management of the Eastern Coyote. Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ. New Brunswick, Fredericton.
  41. Koehler, A.E., R.E. Marsh, and T.P. Salmon. 1990. Frightening methods and devices/stimuli to prevent animal damage - a review. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 14:168- 173.
  42. Laundre´ J.W. and B.L. Keller. 1984. Home-range size of coyotes: a critical review. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:127-139.
  43. Lehner, P.N. 1987. Repellents and condi- tioned avoidance, p. 56-61. In: J. S. Green (ed.), Protecting livestock from coyotes. USDA Agric. Res. Serv. U.S. Sheep Exp. Sta., Dubois, Ida.
  44. Linhart, S.B. 1984a. Managing coyote dam- age problems with nonlethal techniques: recent advances in research. Proc. Eastern Wildl. Damage Conf. 1:105-118.
  45. Linhart, S.B. 1984b. Strobe-light and siren devices for protecting fenced-pasture and range sheep from coyote predation. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 11:154-156.
  46. Linhart, S.B., H.H. Brusman, and D.S. Balser. 1968. Field evaluation of an antifertility agent, stilbesterol, for inhibit- ing coyote reproduction. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. Conf. 33:316-326.
  47. Linhart, S. B., G. J. Dasch, R. R. Johnson, J. D. Roberts, and C. J. Packham. 1992. Electronic frightening devices for reducing coyote depredation on domestic sheep: effi- cacy under range conditions and operational use. Proc. Vert. Pest Conf. 15:386-392.
  48. McAdoo, J. K. 1975. Predation on domestic sheep in northwestern Nevada. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada, Reno, Nev.
  49. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  50. Mech, L.D. 1988. The Arctic wolf: living with the pack. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minn.
  51. Miller, L.A. 1995. Immunocontraception as a tool for controlling reproduction in coy- otes, p. 172-176. In: D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the south- west: a compendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep., Austin, Tex.
  52. Moore, G.C. and G.R. Parker. 1992. Colonization by the eastern coyote (Canis latrans), p. 23-37. In: A. H. Boer (ed.), Ecology and management of the eastern coyote. Wildl. Res. Unit, Univ. New Brunswick, Fredericton.
  53. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula, Mont.
  54. Nunley, G.L. 1995. The re-establishment of the coyotes in the Edward's Plateau of Texas, p. 55-64. In: D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the south- west: a compendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Austin, Tex.
  55. Pearson, E.W. 1986. Current value of live- stock losses to predators. Res. Info. Bull. No. 86-27, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Denver Wildl. Res. Ctr., Denver, Colo. 20 pp.
  56. Pearson, E.W. and M. Caroline. 1981. Predator control in relation to livestock losses in central Texas. J. Range Manage. 34:435-441.
  57. Phillips, M.K., R. Smith, V.G. Henry, and C. Lucash. 1995. Red wolf reintroduction program, p. 157-168. In: L. N. Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip (eds.), Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. Can. Circumpolar Inst. Occas. Publ. 35, Edmonton, Alberta.
  58. Rollins, D. 1995. The livestock protection collar for removing depredating coyotes: a search for perfect justice? p. 168-171. In: D. Rollins, C. Richardson, T. Blankenship, K. Canon, and S. Henke (eds.), Coyotes in the Southwest: a compendium of our knowledge. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dept., Austin, Tex.
  59. Sacks, B.N. 1996. Ecology and behavior of coyotes in relation to depredation and con- trol on a California sheep ranch. M.S. Thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif.
  60. Shelton, M. 1987. Antipredator fencing, p. 30-37. In: J. S. Green (ed.), Protecting livestock from coyotes. USDA Agr. Res. Serv. U.S. Sheep Exp. Sta., Dubois, Ida.
  61. M. S. Thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif.
  62. Slate, D., R. Owens, G. Connolly, and G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage management. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. 57:51-62.
  63. Sterner, R.T. and S.A. Shumake. 1978. Coyote damage-control research: a review and analysis, p. 297-325. In: M. Bekoff (ed.), Coyotes: biology, behavior, and man- agement. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
  64. Stoddart, L.C., F.F. Knowlton, and R.J. Taylor. 1989. A first generation mathe- matical model for calculating area of influ- ence and potential number of animals exposed to management programs, p. 28-33. In: K.A. Fagerstone and R.D. Curnow (eds.), Vert. Pest Control and Manage. Materials, Vol. 6. Amer. Soc. for Test. Mat. Spec. Tech. Publ. 1055.
  65. Teer, J.G., D.L. Drawe, T.L. Blankenship, W.F. Andelt, R.S. Cook, J.G. Kie, F.F. Knowlton, and M. White. 1991. Deer and coyotes: the Welder experiments. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. 56:550-560.
  66. Timm, R.M., and R.H. Schmidt. 1989. Management problems encountered with livestock guarding dogs on the University of California, Hopland Field Station, p. 54-58. In: Great Plains Wildl. Damage Control Workshop. USDA, Forest Serv., General Tech. Rep. RM-171 and Great Plains Agr. Counc. Publ.
  67. Wade, D.H. 1978. Coyote damage: a survey of its nature and scope, control measures and their application, p. 347-368. In: M. Bekoff (ed.). Coyotes: biology, behavior, and management. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
  68. Wagner, F.H. 1981. Role of lagomorphs in ecosystems, p. 668-694. In: K. Meyers and C. D. MacInnes (eds.), Proc. World Lagomorph Conf., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ont.
  69. Weaver, J.L. 1977. Coyote-food base rela- tionships in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.
  70. Weaver, J.L. 1979. Influence of elk carrion upon coyote populations in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, p. 152-157. In: M. S. Boyce and L.D. Hayden-Wing (eds.), Symp. North American elk: ecology, behavior, and management. Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo.
  71. Zemlicka, D.E. 1995. Seasonal variation in the behavior of sterile and nonsterile coy- otes. M.S. Thesis,Utah State Univ., Logan, Ut.

Authors
Knowlton, F. F., Gese, E. M., & Jaeger, M. M.
Affiliations
Utah State University (US)
ORCID
Gese, Eric M.
Venue
Journal of Range Management
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1999-09
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
398
ISSN
0022-409X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/4003765
OpenAlex
W88944695
Cited by
325
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
13.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Range Management (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
coyote, livestock depredation, public lands, wildlife management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review