The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation

Karen M. Blejwas, Benjamin Sacks, Michael M. Jaeger, Dale R. McCullough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We evaluated the effect on sheep losses of selectively removing breeding coyotes (canis latrans) from territories experiencing depredations. Breeding pairs of coyotes were the primary predators of sheep, and they killed sheep only within or on the periphery of their territories. Removal of either or both members of a breeding pair reduced or eliminated predation in that territory during the subsequent 3-month period. Killing of sheep by coyotes resumed sooner in territories that overlapped lambing pastures than in those that did not. For territories with access to lambs, the average time interval until killing of lambs resumed (43 days) approximated the time for a replacement pair of coyotes to become established. Removals of breeding coyotes during the nonlambing season did not reduce losses during the following lambing season. Although <33% as many coyotes were removed per unit time during selective control as during nonselective control, lambing-season lamb losses were lowest during the selective removal period. During the nonlambing period (when predation on sheep was low) sheep losses were similar under selective, nonselective, and no control. These results suggest that selective targeting of breeding coyotes, which is more socially acceptable than nonselective population reduction, also can be more effective in reducing sheep losses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)451-462
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Wildlife Management
Volume66
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Canis latrans
sheep
predation
breeding
lambing
lambs
removal
targeting
pasture
replacement
loss
predator
pastures
predators

Keywords

  • Breeding status
  • California
  • Canis latrans
  • Control
  • Coyote
  • Depredation
  • Livestock protection collar
  • Predation
  • Selective removal
  • Sheep
  • Wildlife damage management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation. / Blejwas, Karen M.; Sacks, Benjamin; Jaeger, Michael M.; McCullough, Dale R.

In: Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 66, No. 2, 01.01.2002, p. 451-462.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Blejwas, Karen M. ; Sacks, Benjamin ; Jaeger, Michael M. ; McCullough, Dale R. / The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation. In: Journal of Wildlife Management. 2002 ; Vol. 66, No. 2. pp. 451-462.
@article{b7ea7d8290144407ae11c03f627f897c,
title = "The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation",
abstract = "We evaluated the effect on sheep losses of selectively removing breeding coyotes (canis latrans) from territories experiencing depredations. Breeding pairs of coyotes were the primary predators of sheep, and they killed sheep only within or on the periphery of their territories. Removal of either or both members of a breeding pair reduced or eliminated predation in that territory during the subsequent 3-month period. Killing of sheep by coyotes resumed sooner in territories that overlapped lambing pastures than in those that did not. For territories with access to lambs, the average time interval until killing of lambs resumed (43 days) approximated the time for a replacement pair of coyotes to become established. Removals of breeding coyotes during the nonlambing season did not reduce losses during the following lambing season. Although <33{\%} as many coyotes were removed per unit time during selective control as during nonselective control, lambing-season lamb losses were lowest during the selective removal period. During the nonlambing period (when predation on sheep was low) sheep losses were similar under selective, nonselective, and no control. These results suggest that selective targeting of breeding coyotes, which is more socially acceptable than nonselective population reduction, also can be more effective in reducing sheep losses.",
keywords = "Breeding status, California, Canis latrans, Control, Coyote, Depredation, Livestock protection collar, Predation, Selective removal, Sheep, Wildlife damage management",
author = "Blejwas, {Karen M.} and Benjamin Sacks and Jaeger, {Michael M.} and McCullough, {Dale R.}",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2307/3803178",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "451--462",
journal = "Journal of Wildlife Management",
issn = "0022-541X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of selective removal of breeding coyotes in reducing sheep predation

AU - Blejwas, Karen M.

AU - Sacks, Benjamin

AU - Jaeger, Michael M.

AU - McCullough, Dale R.

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - We evaluated the effect on sheep losses of selectively removing breeding coyotes (canis latrans) from territories experiencing depredations. Breeding pairs of coyotes were the primary predators of sheep, and they killed sheep only within or on the periphery of their territories. Removal of either or both members of a breeding pair reduced or eliminated predation in that territory during the subsequent 3-month period. Killing of sheep by coyotes resumed sooner in territories that overlapped lambing pastures than in those that did not. For territories with access to lambs, the average time interval until killing of lambs resumed (43 days) approximated the time for a replacement pair of coyotes to become established. Removals of breeding coyotes during the nonlambing season did not reduce losses during the following lambing season. Although <33% as many coyotes were removed per unit time during selective control as during nonselective control, lambing-season lamb losses were lowest during the selective removal period. During the nonlambing period (when predation on sheep was low) sheep losses were similar under selective, nonselective, and no control. These results suggest that selective targeting of breeding coyotes, which is more socially acceptable than nonselective population reduction, also can be more effective in reducing sheep losses.

AB - We evaluated the effect on sheep losses of selectively removing breeding coyotes (canis latrans) from territories experiencing depredations. Breeding pairs of coyotes were the primary predators of sheep, and they killed sheep only within or on the periphery of their territories. Removal of either or both members of a breeding pair reduced or eliminated predation in that territory during the subsequent 3-month period. Killing of sheep by coyotes resumed sooner in territories that overlapped lambing pastures than in those that did not. For territories with access to lambs, the average time interval until killing of lambs resumed (43 days) approximated the time for a replacement pair of coyotes to become established. Removals of breeding coyotes during the nonlambing season did not reduce losses during the following lambing season. Although <33% as many coyotes were removed per unit time during selective control as during nonselective control, lambing-season lamb losses were lowest during the selective removal period. During the nonlambing period (when predation on sheep was low) sheep losses were similar under selective, nonselective, and no control. These results suggest that selective targeting of breeding coyotes, which is more socially acceptable than nonselective population reduction, also can be more effective in reducing sheep losses.

KW - Breeding status

KW - California

KW - Canis latrans

KW - Control

KW - Coyote

KW - Depredation

KW - Livestock protection collar

KW - Predation

KW - Selective removal

KW - Sheep

KW - Wildlife damage management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036527859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036527859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2307/3803178

DO - 10.2307/3803178

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 451

EP - 462

JO - Journal of Wildlife Management

JF - Journal of Wildlife Management

SN - 0022-541X

IS - 2

ER -