  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY—BULLETIN No. 20 C. HART MERRIAM, Chief COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC BY DAVID E. LANTZ Assistant, Biological Survey WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL U. S. Department of Agriculture, Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith for publication as Bulletin No. 20 of the Biological Survey a report on Coyotes in their Economic Relations, prepared by David E. Lantz, assistant. The subject is of immediate importance to the sheep industry of the West, where the wasteful method of sheep herding prevails. If in the range country sheep can be fenced with coyote-proof fencing at moderate cost, as seems probable, herding may be done away with and the sustaining capacity of the lands thereby greatly increased. Respectfully, C. Hart Merriam, Hon. James Wilson, COYOTES IN THEIR ECONOMIC RELATIONS The small prairie wolves of the western and southwestern parts of North America are generally known by the Spanish name 'coyote.' This serves to distinguish them from the larger gray or dusky wolves that occur in many portions of the same range. Intermediate in size between the foxes and the larger wolves, yet varying greatly in this respect with the different species, the coyotes are outwardly characterized by a sharp-pointed muzzle, upright ears, and a moderately long, bushy tail. The pelage is full, especially in winter. The usual color is a dirty gray, with more or less reddish tinge about the head, neck, and legs, and black hairs showing about the shoulders and on the back. The extent of the red and the black varies much with the different species. Coyotes are generally distributed from the central Mississippi Valley to the Pacific coast and from Costa Rica on the south to the plains of the Athabasca on the north.[A] In this extensive range about a dozen species have been thus far recognized.[B] Four of these are restricted to Mexico and Central America. Of the eight forms that occur in the United States, it may be remarked that their ranges and relations to each other have not been fully determined. Much material is yet needed before anyone can write with exact knowledge of their distribution. [A] Edward A. Preble informs the writer that the coyote has been captured at Fort Smith, northern Athabasca (60° north latitude), and on Nelson River in northeastern British Columbia (59° north latitude). [B] The following is a list of the forms:
A group in which there is so much variation in size must also present considerable diversity of habits. The larger forms, like C. latrans, are, of course, the more injurious to the live-stock interests. Smaller species, like C. estor and microdon, confine themselves in their food more to the smaller wild mammals and thus do much less damage. Yet it is not the intention in this preliminary bulletin to consider the species separately. Indeed, no such detailed study of their habits has yet been made. The present paper deals with the group as a whole, and is confined to a discussion of the economic relations of coyotes in general to our agricultural interests. In the matter of fencing to protect sheep and poultry against coyote depredations, the Biological Survey has made some preliminary investigations, and has formulated plans for more extensive experiments in the near future. In the meantime it is hoped that farmers and ranchmen throughout the West who have had personal experience of the efficiency of various forms of fence as a protection against coyotes and other wild animals will write the Biological Survey fully as to such experience. Coyotes are abundant in most parts of their range, except the extreme north and the more thickly populated regions where waste lands are scarce. It is, however, on the plains of the western part of the United States that they come most closely in contact with the advancing tide of settlement. The establishment of pioneer homes throughout the country has always resulted in restricting the numbers of the larger wolves, which have gradually become extinct over large areas in the eastern and middle parts of the United States where they were formerly abundant. Not so with the coyote. Except in a few thickly settled regions, it has thrived upon civilization and is practically as numerous as it was before settlements began. Indeed, in many parts of the West coyotes are said to be increasing in spite of a constant warfare against them. The introduction of domestic birds and mammals has provided the coyotes with an additional food supply always available and entirely precluding any danger of starvation. Then, too, the animals are far too suspicious to be easily destroyed by the use of traps or poisons. Old hunters of the Plains have informed the writer that while it was comparatively easy to poison large numbers of the gray wolf, the coyote was not an easy victim and usually avoided both the baited traps and the poisoned buffalo carcasses. The plains east of the Rocky Mountains and the higher plateaus of the Great Basin west of the mountains are especially adapted to the wants of the coyote. Cultivated areas are far apart: stock ranges are extensive; tall grasses, weeds, cactuses, and sagebrush afford excellent hiding places; rabbits, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and other small animals are plentiful; and, when these natural resources of the country fail, sheep and young calves furnish abundant food. In nearly all the Western States the efforts of ranchmen to destroy the coyote have been supplemented by laws authorizing the payment of bounties from public funds. Some of these laws have been in operation for a score of years or even more and, except locally, no diminution in the general numbers of the animals has resulted. In some parts of Mexico where the natives have for many years practiced systematic poisoning, the coyote is becoming rare, but in most sections of its range it is either increasing or no substantial decrease has been observed. The State of Kansas, where settlements are comparatively old and where man's warfare against the coyote has been long continued, affords an excellent illustration of the animal's ability to maintain its numbers under seemingly adverse circumstances. Most of the counties of the State have for many years paid bounties for killing coyotes, and conditions have been reached where there is little fluctuation in the total amount paid from year to year. The returns of the animals killed for the fiscal twelve months from July 1, 1903, to June 30, 1904, show that nearly 20,000 scalps were presented for bounty in the State. The following is a table, by counties, of the number of coyotes on which bounties were paid during the year above specified. Of the 11 missing counties, 10—Cherokee. Comanche. Finney. Grant, Haskell, Kearney, Morton, Seward, Stevens, and Wyandotte—paid no bounties, and 1, Doniphan, made no report. The bounty in all cases is $1 for each animal killed. Number of coyotes on which bounties were paid in Kansas
[C] six months. The experience in Kansas is not exceptional. It may be duplicated in a dozen other Western States and in some of the British provinces. It is probable that the united efforts of the people are keeping the coyotes in check, and that, were these efforts relaxed, the animals would be far more abundant; but the coyotes are still so menacing to certain interests that the subject requires careful investigation to determine what more may be done to improve present conditions. The various forms of the coyote seem each to conform to particular faunal areas. They inhabit all the life zones, from the Lower Boreal, through the Transition, the Upper and Lower Sonoran, and the semi-arid parts of the Tropical. In the northern part of its range C. latrans has a migratory movement southward in winter and north ward in the spring, probably caused by the limited food supply of the northern wilds, and varying in degree with the severity of the seasons. A similar movement of other species in the western part of the United States from the higher mountain areas to the valleys has been noticed. In summer the mountain species range above timber line. The coyotes are noted for their peculiar prolonged howling. A single animal is capable of a performance which impresses the uninformed hearer as the concert of a dozen, and when several join in the medley the resulting noise is indescribable. They are silent during the day, but may be heard at any time between sunset and sunrise. Coyotes breed but once a year. The mating season is late in January or early in February. The period of gestation is probably that of the whole genus Canis, which is given by Owen as about sixty-three days. The young are produced in dens, and number from four to eight or even more. The dens are usually enlarged from those made by badgers or smaller animals and are often among rocks or in washed-out places along banks of streams. Probably at times they are made entirely by the coyotes. They are rarely far below the surface, but sometimes of considerable extent and with two or more openings. Little attempt is made to provide nests for the young. In the Central West these are born early in April and usually may be heard in the dens during May. In June they come out to play around the mouths of the burrows, which are finally deserted during July. By August 1, the young are left by the parents to shift for themselves. In the earlier descriptions, the prairie wolves were usually said to hunt in packs. Lewis and Clark, Say. Richardson, and others so reported, but the Prince of Wied met them only singly. It is probable that they hunt in numbers only when the quarry is large, as in the ease of deer and antelope; but as many as three have been known to pursue a single jack rabbit. The food of coyotes has been a subject of investigation by the field naturalists of the Biological Survey, whenever opportunity offered. A number of stomach examinations have been made in the field: but trapped animals are often found with empty stomachs. In the case of a number of the species nothing definite is known of the food. The stomachs examined contained mainly animal matter, but in two cases vegetable remains were found. One examined by Vernon Bailey contained a quantity of ripe cultivated plums: and William Lloyd found a coyote that had eaten mesquite beans. In northern Arizona Doctor Merriam saw a coyote eating a watermelon, and a correspondent al Russell, Kans., says that they sometimes cat ripe melons. In California they cat peaches, apricots, grapes, and other fruits. They cat also juniper berries, manzanita berries, and the fruit of the prickly pear (Opuntia). Only one case of insect-eating has been observed by the Biological Survey. The same animal that had eaten plums had in its stomach the remains of a large cricket (Stenopelmatus fasciatus). Coyotes feed greedily upon all kinds of animal food. This ranges from the larger hoofed mammals to the smallest rodents, and includes also birds, reptiles, fish, and crustaceans. Three horned toads (Phrynosoma) were found in the stomach of a specimen killed June 3, 1898, in Big Smoky Valley. Nevada, by Vernon Bailey. On the low tropical coast of eastern Mexico and Texas members of the Biological Survey have often seen coyotes searching the beach for crabs, fish, and turtle eggs. Among the mammals included in the food of the coyotes are many injurious species; and, so far as their food is confined to these, the animals are decidedly beneficial to the farming interests of the country. The destruction of rabbits, both large and small species, is of great advantage, especially on the plains and in the cultivated valleys, where their depredations are keenly felt by the settlers. The various species of jack rabbit have often been observed as included in the coyotes' fare, and the smaller rabbits are also habitually eaten. The coyotes usually catch the rabbits by lying in wait behind bushes and bunches of grass near their paths and pouncing upon them as they pass. Sometimes they have been known to hunt jack rabbits in company. While a single coyote would not be able to run down a jack rabbit, by hunting together, taking turns in the drive, and by taking advantage of the tendency of the hare to run in a circle, they are able to capture it. Eye witnesses to such a performance state that they do not fight over the division of the rabbit's carcass, but that all obtain a share. The constant warfare of many coyotes upon these rodents has much to do in keeping down the numbers; and the abundance of rabbits in some sections of the West has been largely attributed to a local decrease in the number of coyotes, caused by an unusual activity against them which had been stimulated by high bounties. Prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus and other species) are also a staple coyote food. The coyote captures them by hiding behind clumps of weeds or bunches of grass at some distance from the burrows. When the unsuspecting rodent, in feeding, approaches near enough, a few leaps enable the coyote to secure it. The grass in a prairie dog 'town' is usually cropped very short, and all tall-growing weeds are cut down. Sometimes a weed is permitted to grow to maturity on the cone-like mound sit the mouth of a burrow. Only three species of weeds have been seen so growing by the writer—the horse nettle (Solanum rostratum), the Mexican poppy (Argemone), and a Euphorbia (Euphorbia marginata). These afford shade to the animals, but do not obstruct the view. All other weeds, and even cultivated crops, are cut down to prevent the unseen approach of an enemy. When the cultivated crop is some rapid-growing or dense one which they can not clear away, they abandon the land rather than stay to be devoured. But clearing the prairie dog town of weeds is not sufficient to baffle the coyote. In the absence of hiding places he takes to new methods of hunting. J. H. Gaut, of the Biological Survey, records his observations in a prairie dog town in New Mexico: The coyote started at one end of the town and ran at lightning speed in a straight line until he cut off one from its burrow. When the prairie dog saw that it could not get to its hole, it stopped and began to kick until the coyote caught it and killed it in very much the same way that a dog kills a rat. Besides rabbits and prairie dogs, the food of the coyote is known to include the following mammals: Rice rats (Oryzomys), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys and Perodipus), wood rats (Neotoma), ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus, Callospermophilus, and Spermophilus), woodchucks (Marmota), voles (Microtus), pocket gophers (Thomomys), chipmunks (Eutamias), and pocket mice (Perognathus). All of these are more or less harmful, and the coyote performs an important service in preying upon them. The service is not an occasional or a spasmodic one, but lasts throughout the year and throughout the life of the coyote. When the number of animals taking part in the work is considered, the enormous importance of its bearing in maintaining the 'balance of nature' becomes apparent. The coyote is useful also as a scavenger. In the prairie country, especially in winter, it comes into towns at night searching for garbage thrown into the alleys. Here it finds remnants of meat from the table, offal from game, and similar prizes. When hungry it will reject no animal food, not even carrion. The slaughterhouses near the towns are favorite feeding places, and the animals are often shot there by moonlight. On the ranges they soon consume dead horses and cattle. Leaving the bones clean. Coyotes have been known to capture some of the wild animals that assist man in his warfare' against insects and rodent pests. Among them are the weasels. In August, 1903, a member of the Biological Survey met a coyote carrying a weasel in the Pecos River Mountains of New Mexico at an altitude of 11,600 feet. The coyote, frightened, dropped its prey and ran off. The various kinds of skunks also are probably captured and eaten. Coyotes destroy considerable game. Birds that roost and nest on the ground are frequent victims. Quail, grouse, and wild ducks are caught on the nest, and both birds and eggs are eaten. Wild ducks and geese, when wounded and unable to fly, may be found along the banks of streams and ponds, and the coyotes regularly patrol the shores in search of them. In Oklahoma I found fresh coyote tracks each morning on the grassy borders of a large artificial pond. Ducks resorted there in considerable flocks, and I several times found that they had been eaten by coyotes, as evidenced by tracks of the animals and feathers of the birds. Like the larger wolves, the prairie wolf kills deer and antelope. In hunting these they always go in packs of two or more and take turns in the chase. They know that their prey runs in large circles, and at intervals individuals drop out of the pursuit and, crossing a chord of the circle, lie in wait until the quarry passes near them again. In this way the wolves keep fresh until the pursued animal is exhausted, but all of them are 'in at the death.' The present scarcity of these large game animals gives few opportunities for such chases, but on the plains they were formerly of frequent occurrence. The coyote is widely and unfavorably known as a destroyer of domestic animals. Its depredations upon these indicate a marked change of habit since the first settlement of the West. Previously its food was restricted to the wild animals, including young buffalo, antelope, and deer. The destruction of the larger game by man may partly account for the change to farm animals as a diet, but it is probable that the quality of the introduced food had much to do with the coyote's preference for it. The coyote kills hens, ducks, geese, and turkeys. Its usual method of capturing them in daytime is to lurk behind weeds or bushes until the fowls come within reach. Turkeys, which range far afield in search of grasshoppers and other insects, are frequent victims. At night the coyote captures poultry from the roost, provided the door of the henhouse is left open. A correspondent of the Biological Survey wrote from Rexburg, Idaho, that one neighbor had lost 60 chickens and another 30 in one night, taken by coyotes. Another correspondent, in Mayer, Ariz., writes: Have lost about 100 chickens by coyotes. With the exception of killing chickens, I believe them to be beneficial in keeping down the rabbit pest. In approaching ranch buildings either by day or by night the coyote conies from the leeward side and with great caution. Once satisfied that no danger lurks in the shadows, it becomes exceedingly hold. George A. Coleman, formerly a member of the Biological Survey, wrote from London, Nemaha County, Nebr.: Depredations by wolves here upon henroosts and pigpens are of frequent occurrence. I have observed them several times. They come with a dash into the yard, take a chicken by the neck, and are gone before anyone can stop them. In the same way they visit the pigpens and take the young pigs away from the mother. In one instance they made way with eight 6-weeks-old pigs in one night. At another time two of them attacked a pig which would have weighed 75 pounds, and had they not been stopped by dog's would probably have killed it. Few of the mammals of the farm are exempt from coyote raids. Even house cats, roaming far from home in search of rodents or birds, become victims. A correspondent of Forest and Stream, writing from Shirley Basin, Wyo., October 7, 1896, says: I live on a ranch, and we are somewhat troubled by field mice and mountain rats, and so we must keep cats. We have them, but we do not keep them long, because they are caught by coyotes. Within a few months I have lost four cats in this way. The coyote has been known to kill the young of most farm animals—colts, calves, pigs, lambs, and goats. Colts are seldom killed, because the dam can usually protect them. Calves are taken only when the mother cow is feeding at a distance or has gone for water. The coyotes lie watching in the grass until this opportunity comes. Sometimes older animals are killed. Ranchmen in Oklahoma told the writer that in winter yearling cattle in good condition are sometimes killed by coyotes. To accomplish this two or more of them must hunt together, and get the victim separated from the herd. Capt. P. M. Thorne, writing to the Biological Survey from Fort Lyon, Colo.. January 4, 1887, says: Old cattlemen who have lived here nearly all their lives agree in saying that the coyotes kill cattle, even full-grown ones. They say that they have seen them at their work, which is done in packs; they surround an animal and keep up a constant nipping at its legs until it falls from weakness and loss of blood. In July. 1893, at Farmington, Utah, Vernon Bailey saw two coyotes chasing calves and yearlings about a pasture, evidently trying to separate one from the lot. He notes that in June. 1889, at St. Thomas, Nev., coyotes killed a hog that weighed about 100 pounds. THE COYOTE'S RELATION TO THE SHEEP INDUSTRY. The coyote is especially notorious as an enemy of the sheep industry. In many parts of the West sheep raising has greatly languished because of the depredations of wild animals upon the flocks. While some of the injury is caused by the larger wolves, mountain lions, bears, and lynxes, the coyotes are by far the most formidable enemy. They are not only more abundant than the other animals mentioned, but they are present throughout the year, and their depredations are a steady drain upon the resources of the flock owner, comparable in extent to the losses caused by worthless dogs in many parts of the country.[D] [D] In 1801 the loss from dogs was placed at $152,034 in Ohio and $200,000 in Missouri. (Sheep Industry in the United States. U. S. Dept of Agric, 1892.) Dr. E. A. C. Foster, writing from Russell, Kans., in 1887, said: Of mammals, the prairie wolf is perhaps the most troublesome. It is constantly preying upon sheep and lambs; so much so that sheep can not be left alone without some of them falling a prey to this animal. Should the herder be absent or out of view, the wolf makes a dash into the flock and usually secures a lamb. William Lloyd, writing from Paint Rock, Concho County, Tex., said: In January. 1886, coyotes killed over 30 sheep near Fort Stockton, and in March about 20 at Toyah, Tex. Charles W. Richmond, in 1888, wrote to the Survey from Gallatin County. Mont., relating the following incident: While we were camped near Bozeman a flock of some 4,000 sheep were driven by, and night overtook them on some foothills south of Bozeman. During the night a flock of coyotes entered the ranks and the sheep stampeded. Many ran over some bluffs, and next morning sheep, dead and dying, were several feet deep at the foot of the bluffs. Nearly 500 were counted in the pile, and for several days afterwards sheep, with lacerated ears and torn flanks, wandered into barnyards in the vicinity. The total number lost must have been heavy. In parts of the Southwest sheep growers have estimated their losses from wild animals as equal to 20 percent of the flock. The average loss reported from several States is 5 percent. In nearly all the States west of the Mississippi the industry has declined in the past two years, and one of the principal causes given is losses from coyotes. At present the industry thrives only in sections where the local conditions permit the herding of sheep in large flocks—a system highly injurious to the pasturage. It is evident that the wealth of any State could be materially increased if it were possible everywhere to keep small flocks of sheep, Flocks increase rapidly under favorable conditions and good management, and the cost of keeping them is small when herders can be dispensed with. The double product, wool and million, usually places the profit of handling them above that of cuttle or horses. The gains also come oftener, since sheep mature in a year, while cattle and horse require three. Vernon Bailey, chief field naturalist of the Biological Survey, writing from Seguin, Tex., under date of November 8, 1904, says: No sheep are kept in tins part of Texas, and in talking with several intelligent farmers I find that the reason invariably given is the abundance of coyotes. The region is occupied by small farms, mainly 80 to 500 acres, on which cotton, corn, sorghum, and vegetables are the principal crops. There are few if any large stock ranches, but each farm has its pastures for horses and cattle. These pastures are the wild land covered with scattered mosquito, post oak, and patches of chaparral and cactus. The native grasses are abundant and of excellent quality, and in this mild climate furnish good feed throughout the year. Many of the pastures are not half eaten down, and the dead and dry vegetation becomes a nuisance. After harvest cattle and horses are usually turned into cotton and grain fields, where they do good work in cleaning up grass and weeds in the field and along the borders. Still there is abundance of feed constantly going to waste, and a small flock of sheep could be kept with great profit and no expense on almost every farm. Fifty to two hundred sheep on a farm would at once make this part of Texas the most important woolgrowing section of the State. Other advantages to be gained would be keeping down the cactus and chaparral, which are inclined to spread and occupy much of the ground, keeping the edges of pastures and fields cleaned up so that they would not harbor a host of predaceous insects and rodents in close proximity to growing crops, and furnishing to the farmers and small towns a supply of fresh meat other than chicken. In this warm climate beef is rarely available, except in the larger towns. The advantages of introducing sheep into this part of the country are acknowledged by the farmers, and there seems to be no reason why it has not been done, except that coyotes are common, large, and fond of mutton. Similar conditions prevail in many parts of the West and over large areas. While a dozen years ago the low price of wool was an important factor in causing farmers to abandon sheep raising, in recent years the prices have been excellent. Fine washed wool was quoted in the New York market February 6, 1905, at 32.35 cents per pound and in St. Louis on the same date at 40.41 cents per pound. The price of tub-washed wool at St. Louis was at no time during 1904 less than 30 cents per pound. Unwashed wool ranged from 15 to 31 cents during most of the year. Yet the number of sheep in the United States is now decreasing. Montana, with an area of 146,000 square miles, leads the States in the number of sheep kept, which is 5,638,957.[E] England, with an area of 50,867 square miles, has about five times as many as Montana. In Montana sheep are herded in immense flocks; in England every landowner and farmer keeps a small flock. [E] Crop Reporter, U. S. Dept. Agric. February, 1905. It is evident that the discouraging condition of the sheep industry in the United States is not due to a lack of favorable climate nor to the absence of suitable pasturage. Neither is it due to low prices of wool and mutton. Indeed, in our markets mutton is coming to be more and more in favor, and this growing demand may be one of the causes for the present drain upon the flocks and the decrease in their numbers; but the chief discouragement of the industry undoubtedly lies in the depredations of worthless dogs and coyotes. The dog question is a serious one, especially in thickly settled parts of the country, but the evil is best remedied by a resort to taxation. The tax on dogs should be sufficiently high to put most of the worthless ones out of existence. The coyote problem is a serious one. Various methods of dealing with it have been in vogue since coyotes first began to like mutton. None of the methods have been entirely satisfactory, and some are signal failures. All of them combined have resulted in a partial check on the increase of coyotes in most parts of their range. Poison has probably killed the greatest number of adult animals, and in some parts of Mexico has almost destroyed some of the species, but no such success has attended its use in the United States. Strychnine has always been a favorite weapon of hunters for wolf pelts and bounties. A half century ago hunters on the prairies killed the buffalo for its pelt, and added to their income by killing the wolves that followed the daily slaughter. A little strychnine inserted in the skinned carcass of a buffalo enabled them to secure many pelts of the gray wolf and occasionally one of the coyote; but not often the latter: he was regarded as much too shrewd to be taken by ordinary methods of poisoning. Resides, the pelt was small and not sufficiently valuable in comparison to warrant special efforts to secure it. Even in 1819 Thomas Say, who first gave a scientific name to a coyote, found this animal more abundant than the gray wolf.[F] Yet the number killed for their pelts has never been great. |
|