NOT FOR QUOTATION
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR
THE COYUIX PREDATION ISSUE:
A
SUKVEYOF POLICY AND
PERSPEXXMS WITHA FOCUS ON SOUTHERN IDAHO
Dianne G. Coodurin
December 1985 WP-85-093
Working Prrpers are interim r e p o r t s on work of t h e International Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis and have received only Limited review. Views o r opinions expressed herein do not necessarily r e p r e s e n t those of t h e Institute or of i t s National Member Organizations.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
This paper is a compilation of an amorphous mass of information on the coyote predation issue in the U.S.A. with a focus on southern Idaho. I t covers t h e period f r o m the origins of t h e federal animal damage control program in the late 1800's up to 1981. I t s aim is to survey the key factors involved in this issue relative to a backdrop of different and changing perspectives and t h e federal policy responses to these differences and changes.
The data and information were gathered through reviewing t h e literature and through discussions with individuals and groups having extremely diverse views on t h e coyote predation issue. Two weeks were spent in southern Idaho gathering data and discussing t h e issue with Animal Damage Control (ADC) agents, trappers, Environmentalists, and coyote researchers. Many days were spent on the range learning about sheep ranching and the Woolgrowers predation problems.
The paper is organized in five sections. The f i r s t section describes the evolu- tion of the coyote predation issue and federal policy responses. The second sec- tion outlines t h e problem f r o m t h r e e diverse perspectives, that of: the Wool- grower, the Animal Damage Control agent and t h e Environmentalist, and that of a n American who simply p r e f e r s coyotes to sheep. I t presents some of the myriad of different factors t h a t a r e of concern to them. The third section sketches the biol- ogy of t h e coyote or t h e key variables in coyote population dynamics. The fourth section presents t w o of t h e few disturbance experiments available for coyote p*
pulations at t h e time of this study. The fifth and final section presents t h e data f r o m 1928
-
1981 on t h e number of coyotes killed and t h e percentage of sheep losses f o r Idaho.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful t o John Watts f o r t h e many hours h e spent with m e editing and discussing t h e organization of t h e e a r l y drafts of this paper. I am indebted t o t h e Woolgrowers and t r a p p e r s of t h e Boise and south Idaho a r e a who not only spent many hours in discussions but also patiently introduced m e t o t h e i r professions.
George Jorstad, a friend and colleague who personally experienced t h e West throughout t h e 1900's has provided a lively response t o my f i r s t d r a f t which I have included in t h e text. My s i n c e r e thanks t o Judy Pakes f o r long hours spent typing and formatting. I thank C. Joe Parkham of t h e Boise Animal Damage Control office f o r valuable comments on t h e f i r s t d r a f t , and he and t h e o t h e r members of his group f o r discussions and data. I thank Michael Thompson f o r his comments and suggestions.
I a m deeply grateful t o James Vaupel f o r reviewing t h e p a p e r and his insights a s t o f u r t h e r drafts. A thank you t o Roberta Yared f o r proof reading and prompt- ing. In addition, I thank Guy Connolly, Frederick Knowlton, and Frederic Wagner f o r t h e i r valuable information on coyote populations.
Policy Development
Coyote predation on sheep in the U.S. is a problem that originated with sheep ranching a t the end of the 19th century. Since this time, sheep ranchers (Wool- growers) have paid f o r the right to graze their sheep on public lands. As a mnset- quence, they felt that the payment of grazing fees placed the responsibility for predator control with the government.
In 1886, the Bureau of Biological Survey of the United States federal govern- ment was formed and began investigating the Woolgrowers' predator problems. By 1914, experiments and demonstrations in predator control were mnducted by the Bureau. The Woolgrowers did not find this effort sufficient f o r controlling t h e i r predation problems and in 1915, they went to Congress to request direct Federal involvement in controlling predators.
This request was reinforced by increased demand f o r food and fiber due due to World W a r I, as well a s by the need to control a surprise rabies epidemic. Poli- tics, problems and perceptions came together and predator control soon became a major priority. The Bureau accepted responsibility f o r directly controlling preda- tors as distinct from simply studying the problem.
For many years the federal government used a variety of methods to suppress coyote populations on public lands used by Woolgrowers. After World War 11, t h e use of toxicants became important and Compound 1080 (sodimn monofluoroacetate) w a s seen a s somewhat of a panacea because of its potency, ease of use and inexpen- siveness.
By the 1960s. the public became more interested in public lands, which many considered to be 'wilderness' areas. In concert with this intensified public in- terest. environmental protection groups b e m e actively involved in this issue.
Very soon "public clamor" arose regarding t h e coyote control policies of t h e federal program. This surprise f r o m the social system resulted in the Secretary of t h e Interior requesting his Advisory Board on Wildlife Management to "investi- gate the role and practices of the federal Government in animal damage control and to recommend changes, if needed. to ensure an environmentally sound and so- cially acceptable federal Animal Damage Control Program." Based on this r e p o r t a number of policy adjustments w e r e made.
In 1971, the Federal Government was again surprised when environmental groups filed an injunction against the Department of the Interior. A subsequent study revealed that while policy adjustments had been made which w e r e in Line with the recommendations of the 1964 report, f e w changes had been implemented a f t e r the 1964 study and that significant change would require legislation. In 1972, President Nixon banned the use of toxicants In the federal program. It w a s sug- gested that effective alternatives existed. Many of the other recommendations of the study were not implemented. The toxicant ban appeased the Environmentalists but not most Woolgrowers and Animal Damage Control (ADC) managers who viewed this as an unwarranted action and felt that toxicants were necessary f o r coyote control. Tension w a s enhanced by the fact that the Woolgrowers were not allowed a
-
vii-
preliminary review of e i t h e r t h e 1864 or t h e 1971 r e p o r t , although they had ini- tially been promised one. For a number of y e a r s suits and c o u n t e r suits ensued with t h e United States Department of t h e Interior (USDI) and t h e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on t h e one side and t h e W o o l g r o w e r s associations and state governments on t h e o t h e r . The state governments were also opposed to t h e toxicant ban. As a r e s u l t , t h e 1972 Executive O r d e r banning toxicant use was modified in 1975. In 1977, special permission w a s given f o r t h e experimental u s e of compound 1080 in t h e toxic aollar.
The President of t h e United States included, in his 1977 environmental mes- sage, a special clause conoerned with p r e d a t o r control policy. He stated t h a t since p r e d a t o r s play a n important r o l e in various ecosystems, t h e goal of a control program must not b e to d e s t r o y them but to minimize t h e i r oonflict with livestock.
He r e p o r t e d t h a t his administration would continue to s u p p o r t t h e toxicant ban and t h a t if control w a s n e c e s s a r y i t should focus on t h e p r e d a t o r s causing t h e problem and not t h e s p e c i e s as a whole. Pursuant to t h i s message, t h e Associate D i r e c t o r of t h e United States Fish and Wildlife S e r v i c e (USFWS) oiraulated a message throughout t h e department emphasizing t h a t t h e objective of t h e p r e d a t o r control program was t h e selective control of depradating individuals or local populations and sanctioned t h e use of preventive methods only in areas of h i s t o r i c losses to predators. The president of t h e Woolgrowers Association wrote to t h e Secretary of t h e I n t e r i o r expressing t h e Woolgrowers discontent with t h e existing program and reaommended a number of changes.
In 1977, t h e Secretary of t h e I n t e r i o r responded to t h e concerns o v e r preda- tor control by requesting a policy study of t h e problem. The Offiae of Audit and In- vestigation concluded t h a t t h e "Fish and Wildlife S e r v i c e (FWS) cannot effectively determine whether t h e estimated expenditures of $8 million US dollars in fiscal y e a r 1978 had a significant impact on the prevention of Livestock losses by preda- tors in areas where ADC methods were utilized." Public opinion surveys included in t h e report elucidated conflicting values between t h e livestock owners and seg- ments of t h e general public. Forty-four p e r c e n t of those interviewed were aware of t h e coyote-sheep issue and approximately t h e same p e r c e n t a g e believed i t to b e important. Major public concerns were specificity and humaneness in control methods.
In 1979, a new policy statement w a s issued by t h e Secretary of the Interior. I t w a s followed by a policy document t h e n e x t year. The document stated t h a t t h e program goal was "to a s s i s t in reducing wildlife caused damages in a manner which t a k e s into consideration impacts on t h e environment" and t h a t social acceptability is important.
Responses to t h e 1980 ADC Policy were as polarized as t h e c o n c e r n s that ini- tiated t h e study on which i t i s based. The d e g r e e of emphasis on local c o r r e c t i v e control w a s considered unrealistic by most Woolgrowers and ADC managers. Once again t h e Woolgrowers e x p r e s s e d t h e i r discontent at not being directly included in t h e design of t h i s policy which affected them. Consequently, as in 1915, t h e W o o l - growers once again a p p r o a c h e d Congress to request assistance in coyote control.
A
Variety of PempectivesThe woolgrowing industry, in Southwestern Idaho, consists of farm flock and r a n g e operations f o r t h e production of food and fiber. Essentially, i t i s t h e r a n g e o p e r a t o r s who have t h e majority of obstacles to overcome in t h e i r attempts to maximize production. Along with land use restrictions and l a b o r shortages, coyote predation is t h e major problem they perceive. While at c e r t a i n times and in cer- tain places coyote predation is a serious problem, most r a n c h e r s f e e l t h a t preda-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. .
...
PREFACE in
...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
. . ...
SUMMARY vn
...
LIST OF TABLES xiii
...
LIST OF FIGURES xv
...
1
.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT -01...
1.1 1800s: Early History -01
...
1.2 Late 1800s: The Initiation of a Control Program 03 1.3 1915: A Surprise from the 'Natural' System
...
05...
1.4 1919: The Continuation of the Predator Control Program 06 1.5 1925: A Change in Name
...
06...
1.6 1931: The ADC Act -07
1.7 1939: Responsiblity for the Division
...
08 1.8 1960s: A Surprise from the Social System...
09...
1.9 1965: The Federal Response 10
...
1.10 1971: Another Surprise from the Social System 11
...
1.11 1972: A Policy Reversal -13
1.12 1974: A Change in Name
...
Research in the 1970s -13
1.13 1977: A Presidential Statement on Predator Control
...
171.14 1977: The Federal Government Responds
...
Public Opinion Surveys 18
...
1.15 1979: A New Policy Statement 21
A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES ON SHEEP
...
kRANCHING AND COYOTE CONTROL 25
...
2.1 The Sheep Industry in Southwestern Idaho 27
...
2.1.1 Woolgrowers' problems 27
...
2.1.1.1 Market jZuctuations 27
2.1.1.2 Labor
...
27...
2.1.1.3 Land u s e restrictions -29
...
2.1.1.4 Predation 30
2.1.2 Woolgrowers' management practices
...
33...
2.1.2.1 Deterring predation -33
...
...
2.1.2.2 Lambing \ 35
...
2.1.3 Indirect losses to predator 36
...
2.1.4 Conclusion -37
...
2.2 Controlling Sheep Losses in Southwestern Idaho 37
...
2.2.1 ADC management practices -39
2.2.1.1 Predator control strateDies
...
-39...
2.2.1.2 Control methods -40
2.2.2 Manager's problems
...
-40 2.2.2.1 field restrictions...
402.2.2.2 Manpower
...
-402.2.2.3 Federal policy
...
-422.2.2.4 h p a r t m e n t a l s u p p o r t
...
-422.2.3 Conclusion
...
-432.3 Concern with t h e Environmental and Economic
...
E f f e c t s of S h e e p Ranching and t h e ADC P r o g r a m 43 3.
THE 'NATURAL' SYSTEM...
483.1 Feeding Behavior
...
-483.2 Coyote Population Biology
...
-523.2.1 Demographic mechanisms
...
-523.2.1.1 N a t d i t y
...
52...
3.2.1.2 Mortality 55...
3 2.1.3 Emigration -55 3.3 O t h e r Wildlife Relative to t h e Coyote Population...
583.4 Conclusion
...
-604
.
THE DISTURBANCE EXPERIMENTS...
615
.
IDAHO DATA: COYOTES CONTROLLED AND SHEEP LOST...
67REFERENCES
...
-75APPENDIX I: 1931 ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL ACT
...
77APPENDIX 11: DIVISION OF WILDLIFE SERVICES POLICY
.
1967...
79Definition
...
-79Objectives
...
-79Cooperation
...
-80Operations
...
-81R e s e a r c h
...
-82. ...
APPENDIX 111: ANIMAL CONTROL POLICY ADC 83 APPENDIX IV: PROGRAM GUIDANCE...
-85G e n e r a l Policies
...
-85.
xii.
tor aontrol is not their job but that of the government, from whom they lease the lands and to whom they pay 50% of the predator control aosts.
The Animal Damage Control (ADC) Program is sponsored by both t h e livestock interests and t h e federal government's United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Through t h e use of preventative and corrective strategies, i t attempts to minimize sheep losses. The implementation of these strategies are constrained by government policies and field difficulties so that the local ADC manager feels f r u s t r a t e d in his ability to minimize losses for his 'client', t h e sheep rancher.
Many trappers. Environmentalists and naturalists are opposed to the use of public lands f o r sheep ranching and/or to the ACD program and its practices. The reasons range from deeming coyotes as t h e "truest of all Americans" to dislike f o r sheep as invaders of wilderness areas to concern f o r t h e specificity and hurnane- ness of ADC methods. Economic concerns are also expressed by t r a p p e r s and those who question t h e r e t u r n for tax dollars spent on t h e
AM=
program.The 'Natnral' System
Between 1972 and 1980 coyote densities f o r the USA fluctuated within approxi- mately a 35% margin and those f o r Idaho within approximately a 50Z margin. The Idaho population reached a n eight y e a r low point in 1980. Locally, regular cyclic fluctuations in numbers are evident. Densities appear to be determined by prey availability and coyote behavior. Coyote food habits vary relative to the abun- dance and availability of jackrabbits and rodents. There is evidence to indiaate that both coyote densities and feeding behavior play key roles in t h e population dynamics of o t h e r animals. I t h a s also long been recognized t h a t coyotes play a n important role in the reduction of rodent populations.
The Disturbance Experiments
Current r e s e a r a h indiaates t h a t "substantial" levels of coyote population reduction do not reduoe annual coyote densities. Control efforts tend to supplant natural population reduction mechanisms. In an experiment comparing recruitment rates f o r differentially controlled areas, a l a r g e r percentage of t h e f e m a l e s bred and raised litters in t h e areas with higher levels of population control.
Another experiment involved two comparable populations
-
one with "substan- tial" annual coyote removal and another with no organized control effort. The results showed no significant differences in spring or fall coyote densities or an- nual survival rates f o r t h e t w o populations although kill rates w e r e substantially higher in the managed populations. However, t h e r e were indicators of differences in population composition. The f a c t o r s contributing to the r e t u r n to similar popu- lation levels w e r e : decreased natural mortality, increased recruitment, and de- creased emigration in the managed system. Residents of t h e managed population also had a lower a v e r a g e body weight-
a potential indicator of less healthy an- imals. This may be t h e effect of reduced selective pressures (whereby less f i t an- i m a l s are expelled f r o m t h e population) while t h e density i s temporarily lowered in managed population. managed population.I d a h o Data: C o y o t e s C o n t r o l l e d and Sheep L w t
A relationship between t h e number of coyotes killed and the number of sheep lost to coyotes has not been established. The heterogeneity involved in these vari- ables makes this a n extremely difficult task.
The number of coyotes killed o v e r time i s influenced by: funding levels, oon- trol methods and t h e i r efficacy, t r a p p i n g t r e n d s , f e d e r a l policy, as well as coyote, s h e e p , and r a b b i t population levels, and distribution. In t u r n , t h e number of s h e e p killed by coyotes i s influenced by: ranching p r a c t i c e s and coyote, s h e e p , and r a b - b i t population levels as w e l l as t h e number of coyotes killed.
According to ADC agents, i t i s t h e s h o r t t e r m r e d u c t i o n of ooyotes t h a t i s c r u - tial, p a r t i c u l a r l y during t h e lambing period.
"Substantial levels of coyote population reduction does, definitely, r e d u c e coyote densities f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of time. Both "preventative"
and "corrective" control s t r a t e g i e s are based on t h i s proven f a c t . It is also a proven f a c t t h a t killing coyotes (sometimes o n e and sometimes more) does s t o p killing of livestock (Packham, p e n . c o r n . ) .
"
LIST
OF TAELES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Fish and Wildlife Service total ACD r e s e a r c h funds, and funds for preda- tor r e s e a r c h of FWS, USDA, and EPA, fiscal y e a r 1970-1978.
Funds f o r Fish and Wildlife S e r v i c e p r e d a t o r r e s e a r c h by type of r e s e a r c h , fiscal year 1970-1978.
Summary of public opinion study on coyote control.
Summary of responses to 1980 ADC policy (Andrus Policy).
Economic losses to Woolgrowers in Idaho in 1980.
Percentage utilization of ADC methods.
Frequency of food items in winter coyote stomachs from Curlew Valley vicinity.
Year-round coyote feeding p a t t e r n s in Curlew Valley, Utah and Idaho, September 1973 to May 1975 (the lowest point in t h e jackrabbit cycle).
Seasonal food habits of coyotes in Curlew Valley, Idaho, spring 1974 to spring 1975 (the lowest point in t h e jackrabbit cycle).
Composite sample of birth rates from populations with p r e d a t o r control.
Summary of r e s u l t s of f o u r telemetric coyote mortality studies, to show the percent of deaths that are man related. Wyoming and Idaho are
'light control" a r e a s .
Differential recruitment rates in heavy and light coyote control areas.
Survey of population parameter estimates (SE) f o r coyotes in Curlew Valley (managed) and at t h e INEL ("natural") a r e a , 1975-1978.
Comparison of body weights at t h e time of f i r s t c a p t u r e based on a n individual's subsequent s t a t u s during the period from r e l e a s e (September-October) to June.
Coyote control
-
sheep loss data for Idaho Animal Damage Control Pro- gram.-
xiii-
LIST
OF
FTGUBESFigure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
l i g u r e 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Sheep numbers, in millions of sheep, in Idaho.
Woalgrowers' problems.
The spatial distribution of eight habitat types in t h e Curlew Valley study area.
Trends in statewide coyote indices, 1972-1980.
Coyote and jackrabbit cycles in Curlew Valley, southcentral Idaho.
The fate of juvenile coyotes marked in Curlew Valley (1976-1977) and in t h e INEL (1975-lg7'7) f r o m release in S e p t e m b e r 4 c t o b e r to June.
(a) Sheep lost (percentage of total sheep in Idaho, Figure 1). (b) Coyotes killed.
(a) Coyote pelt harvest. @) Coyote pelt prices.
THE COYOTE PREDATION ISSUE:
A SURVEY OF POLICY AND
PERSPECXMSWITH A FOCUS ON
SOUTHEWUIDAHO
Dianne G. Goodwin
1.
POLICY DEYELOPMXNT
1-1. 1800s: Early HistoryOne of the many hardships faced by settlers moving to western North America in t h e 1600s w a s coyote predation on their livestock (USDI, 1945). Canis Latrans,
"the barking dog," had inhabited t h e western plains since t h e Pleistocene (Young and Jackson, 1951). This a n i m a l was naturally perceived as a r a t h e r lowly beast by t h e settlers and often, along with the o t h e r predators, r e p r e s e n t e d t h e unpredict- a b l e f o r c e s t h a t eminated from t h e wilderness in which they struggled to make a home. An e a r l y and colorful description of t h e coyote w a s given by Mark Twain, who visited Nevada in 1861.
About half a n h o u r a f t e r b r e a k f a s t w e s a w t h e f i r s t prairie-dog villages, t h e f i r s t antelope, and t h e f i r s t wolf. If I remember rlghtly, Lhls latter
was t h e r e g u l a r coyote (pronounced k y e t e ) of t h e f a r t h e r d e s e r t s . And if i t w a s , h e was not a p r e t t y creature, or respectable e i t h e r , f o r I got wellacquainted with his race afterward, and can speak with confidence.
The coyote is a long, slim, sick and sorry-looking skeleton, with a g r a y wolf-skin s t r e t c h e d o v e r i t , a tolerably bushy tail t h a t f o r e v e r sags down with a despairing expression of forsakeness and misery, a f u r t i v e and evil eye, and a long, s h a r p face, with a slightly lifted lip and slightly ex- posed teeth. He is a g e n e r a l slinking expression all over. The coyote i s a living, breathing allegory of Want. He is always hungry. He always poor, out of luck and friendless. The meanest creatures despise him, and even t h e fleas would d e s e r t him f o r a velocipide. He i s so spiritless and cowardly t h a t even while his exposed teeth are pretending a t h r e a t , t h e rest of his f a c e i s apologizing f o r it. And h e is so homely!
-
so scrawny,and ribby, and coarse-haired, and pitiful. When h e sees you h e lifts his lip and lets a flash or his t e e t h out, and then runs a little bit out of t h e course h e w a s pursuing, depresses his head a bit, and s t r i k e s a long, soft-footed trot through t h e sage-brush, glancing o v e r his shoulder at you, from time to time, till h e is about out of easy pistol range, and then h e stops and t a k e s a deliberate survey of you; h e will trot fifty y a r d s a n o t h e r fifty and s t o p again; and finally t h e g r a y of his gliding body
blends with t h e gray of the sage-brush, and he disappears. All this is when you make no demonstration against him; but if you do, h e develops a livlier interest in his Journey, and instantly electrifies his heels and puts such a deal of real estate between himself and your weapon, t h a t by t h e time you have raised t h e hammer you see that you need a minnie rifle, and by t h e time you have got him in line you need a rifled aannon, and by the t i m e you have "drawn a bead" on him you see w e l l enough t h a t nothing but a n unusually long-winded streak of lightening could r e a c h him where is now (Twain, 1953).
Potential p r e d a t o r problems f o r Woolgrowers were noted by early explorers.
In 1790, David Thompson, a pioneer geographer said: "they (the western plains) are well adapted f o r raising cattle, and when t h e wolves are destroyed, also f o r sheep" (Green 1945). (Throughout early history coyotes and wolves were often both r e f e r r e d to as wolves.) This sentiment was echoed in 1860 by Francis Hayden, director of t h e Geological Survey: ''Sheep especially would thrive well if properly cared for, as f a r as grazing i s aoncerned, though t h e g r e a t numbers of wolves with which t h e country abounds would present a formidable concern" (Green. 1945).
However, these warnings did not p r e p a r e t h e settlers f o r t h e realities of pre- dation. In early efforts to deal with predation, community gatherings were called.
In f a c t t h e f i r s t meeting of t h e settlers in W h m e t t e Valley, Oregon. in 1843. was called t h e "wolf meeting" and was primarily to formulate m e a s u r e s of protection against predators (Green, 1945).
A number of p r e d a t o r control techniques were utilized by t h e early settlers.
Community hunts w e r e organized, either as a preventative measure to reduce local predator populations, or as a corrective effort to eliminate a particularly des- tructive aoyote or wolf. (The hunts soon became popular as a sport.) Poisons were also utilized. Strychnine was placed in carcasses found on t h e range. This p m c - tice was encouraged and became an unwritten "law of t h e West" (USDI, 1945). De- fensive control measures were also employed by t h e livestock owners. A number of these were: night c o d s , . f e n c e s and dogs. Many of these defensive efforts w e r e successful. particularly f o r s m a l l e r flocks (Lantz. 1905).
Another method of coyote control, initiated in t h e West in approximately 1 850, w a s the bounty program. Any party who w a s interested in coyote control (usu- ally government agencies) paid f o r coyote scalps. However, this system soon be- came c o r r u p t as scalps o t h e r than coyote's were turned in f o r payment. The boun- ty plan r o s e to its peak p r i o r to 1915, a f t e r which t i m e i t was replaced by a aoor- dinated federal government control plan.
Fur t r a p p e r s played an essential, yet i r r e g u l a r , role in e a r l y aoyote control.
Trapping intensity varied with t h e p r i c e of f u r s , as set by fashion t r e n d s and the availability of p r e f e r r e d f u r s such as beaver. From 1860-1885 coyote and wolf pelts were particularly valuable and t h i s resulted in a n intensive poisoning cam- paign. Some hundreds of thousands of coyotes, along with wolves and o t h e r small mammals. were taken from an area extending from Canada, through t h e mid-western s t a t e s , to Texas. Wolves were all but eliminated from t h i s area (Young and Jack- son. 1951).
1.2. Late lBOOs: The Initiation of a Control Program under the Bureau of Biological Survey
In t h e late 1800s. an increasing degree of dissatisfaction with existing preda- tor control w a s expressed. A t this t i m e t h e a v e r a g e loss rate f o r s h e e p in t h e western states was r e p o r t e d to be 5Z, but losses as high as 20Z were r e p o r t e d . The coyote was cited as causing a decline in the sheep industry at t h i s time (Lank, 1905).
The Bureau of Biological Survey, a branch of t h e Department of Agriculture, w a s founded in 1886 to investigate both p r e d a t o r and rodent problems. The Bureau w a s rapidly inundated with complaints from all o v e r t h e country. The F o r e s t S e r - vice was a major source of complaints as i t administered t h e public lands on which livestock grazed. The r a n c h e r s complained to t h e Forest Service, who in turn com- plained to t h e Bureau. Demands were made f o r a b e t t e r system of controlling p r e - dators. The bounty plan w a s aonsidered f a r from adequate. In response to t h e s e demands t h e Bureau began investigating p r e d a t o r damage to livestock and wild game and published four r e p o r t s : "Key to Animals on which Wolf and Coyote Boun- t i e s are often Paid" (1909), "Destruction of Deer by t h e Northern Timber Wolf"
(1907), "Directions f o r t h e Destruction of Wolves and Coyotes" (1907) and 'Coyotes in t h e i r Economic Relations" (1905). The Bureau of Biological Survey originated as a n investigative body, but as a result of t h e complaints from t h e Forest Service and livestock owners, evolved to an advisory capacity by t h e e a r l y 1900s.
The Bureau's investigations revealed t h e coyote to have both detrimental and beneficial habits. The sheep industry's coyote predation problem was recognized.
The coyote is especially notorious as a n enemy of t h e sheep industry. In many p a r t s of t h e w e s t sheep raising h a s greatly languished because of t h e depredations of wild animals upon t h e flocks. While some of t h e inju-
ry is awed by l a r g e r wolves, mountain lions, b e a r s , and lynxes, t h e coy- otes a r e by f a r t h e most formidable enemy. They are not only more abun- dant than t h e o t h e r animals mentioned, but they are present throughout t h e y e a r , and t h e i r depredations are a steady drain upon t h e resources of t h e flock owner, comparable in extent to t h e losses cawed by worth- less dogs in many p a r t s of t h e country (Lantz, 1905).
Consequently, t h e Bureau gave advice on cmntrol methods. However, i t w a s also recognized that t h e aoyote performed a valuable service f o r farmers by reducing rabbits and rodents. This w a s also useful to t h e Bureau as its mandate inoluded control of these animals. The coyote's importance in maintaining t h e balanoe of nature and i t s value as a axmion-eater were also pointed out.
Besides r a b b i t s and p r a i r i e dogs, t h e food of the coyote is known to in- clude the following mammals: rioe r a t s , kangaroo r a t s , woodrats, ground squirrels, woodchucks, voles, pocket gophers. chipmunks. and pocket mioe. All of these are more or less harmful, and the aoyote performs a n important service in preying upon them. The service is not an occasional or sporadic one, but lasts throughout the y e a r and throughout t h e life of t h e coyote. When the number of animals taking part in t h e work is con- sidered, t h e enormous importance of its bearing in maintaining the 'bal- ance of nature' becomes apparent. The coyote is useful also as a scavenger.
...
On t h e ranges they soon consume dead horses and cattle, leaving the bones clean (Lantz, 1905).Keeping in mind t h e beneficial, as w e l l as t h e detrimental role of coyotes, Lantz (1905) suggested t h a t if
...
domestic animals (were) entirely protected, t h e coyotes would r e t u r n to t h e i r original beneficid occupation as scavengers and destroyers of noxious rodents.He advised %verywhere to keep small flocks of sheep."
By the t u r n of the century, the livestock interests were extremely dissatisfied w i t h the p r e d a t o r control situation. The ranchers believed that since the federal government charged fees f o r grazing public lands, t h e federal government should be responsible f o r controlling predator damage to livestock on these arm.
The stock interests felt and forcibly expressed t h e sentiment that it w a s unfair to collect a grazing f e e from any owner whose stock grazed a forest heavily infested with wolves and o t h e r predators (USDI, 1945).
The Forest Service also increased pressure on the Bureau to d o something about t h e p r e d a t o r problem. The federal government responded by appropriating funds to t h e Bureau. The funds were f o r "experiments and demonstrations" on improved control techniques. This response w a s attributed to t h e large i n t e r e s t t h e govern- ment had in the vast a c r e a g e s of undeveloped public lands (USDI, 1945).
Neither stockmen nor t h e Forest Service were satisfied with "experiments and demonstrations" and in 1915 irate stockmen went to their representatives in Congress to obtain aid f r o m t h e federal government for active predator control.
1.3. 1915:
A
Surprise f r o m the 'Natural' S y d 5 and the C n a t i o n o f a P r e&tor C o n t r o l F+ognm
In 1915, a n unexpected event occurred in the 'naturals system. A rabies epi- demic broke out in t h e West. I t raged through southeastern Oregon, northern Cali- fornia, southern Idaho and northern Nevada. In this same y e a r , a n act w a s passed that "called f o r d i r e c t participation by the Biological Survey in m n t r o l work in- stead of mere instruction" (USDI, 1945). The government responded to the epidem- ic with an immediate appropriation of funds. This rapid response by t h e govern- ment dealt with t h e rabies epidemic and also appeased the ranchers. The r a b i e s epidemic "acted as a decided stimulus to the trend which f o r more than a decade had been gradually centering t h e control work on wild animals in the Biological Survey" (USDI, 1945). The Federal Government's decision to become involved in p r e d a t o r control work ams undoubtedly influenced by a sequence of factors: con- stant p r e s s u r e from the Woolgrowers and Forest Service, increased needs for food and f i b e r due to World W a r I and t h e pressure to control t h e rabies epidemic.
The Bureau, in its new animal damage control capacity, found the suppression of t h e r a b i e s epidemic to b e a difficult task. In 1916, additional funds w e r e ap- propriated and "the Secretary of Agriculture was given broad discretionary p o w e r s as to procedure" (USDI, 1945). The W e s t was divided into eight districts.
Each district had a n inspector and all of t h e districts were coordinated by a su- pervisor. Full-time hunters and trappers, who had been employed f r o m 1915,
"...
gradually reduced t h e outbreak from plague-like proportions to sporadic and 10- calized outbreaks by early 1919" (Young and Jackson, 1951).
Note: Sporadic outbreaks of rabies have been reoorded throughout history, but it is not known if epidemics are cyclic in occurrence. "Literature on coyote rabies i s extremely rare" (Bear, 'pers. comm.) Gier et al. (1978) note that an out- break of similar magnitude has not occurred in t h e USA since 1915. Gier has noted epidemics are more likely to occur when over-population, food shortage or hunting p r e s s u r e promote mncentrations of animals. The U.S. Public Health Service has noted that t h e most common vectors transmitting rabies to man, pets, or livestock, are skunks, bats. racoons and foxes. A 1971 study, under t h e chairmanship of Dr.
P e t e r Kennedy, did not support killing wildlife as a n effective d e t e r r e n t to rabies.
Gier et al. (1978) have suggested:
Control of r a b i e s in domestic dogs i s probably t h e greatest safeguard against r a b i e s in coyotes that w e am provide, although a n epizootic in coyotes could be s t a r t e d from fox, skunk, or bat, e i t h e r from a bite by t h e rabid animal or by a coyote eating another animal dead from rabies.
1.4. 1919: The Continuation of the Predator Control
By t h e t i m e i t was perceived t h a t t h e rabies epidemic w a s suppressed, four y e a r s had passed and a task f o r c e of field men and supervisors had been esh- blished. The Bureau had become responsible f o r "controlling wolves, coyotes and other animals injurious to agriculture and animal husbandry on t h e national f o r e s t s and t h e public domain" (USDI, 1945).
The men of t h e Bureau soon became t h e heroes of t h e i r day. They belonged to a "fighting organization" that pushed back the 'unfriendly' wilderness and in doing so a l l o w e d t h e r a n c h e r s to "populate t h e range country with flocks and herds, and in this way
...
lower t h e cost of production of livestock and of t h e meat t h a t goes upon t h e family table" (Bell, 1920). As t h e wilderness was "pushed back" and ranching spread, t h e r a n c h e r s came to r e l y on t h e Bureau, and a good working re- lationship developed (Bell, 1920).The earliest methods of p r e d a t o r control used by t h e Bureau were shooting, trapping, snaring, denning and poisoning. Denning is t h e practice of finding coyote dens in the spring and killing pups and adults. Often even if t h e adult isn't killed, predation w i l l stop, presumably due to t h e mother's decreased food requirements.
Strychnine had been introduced in 1847 and was heavily used in U o w d r o p baits.
According to Bell (1920). thousands of coyotes were killed and a corresponding de- c r e a s e in livestock losses was noted.
1.5. 1925:
A
Change in Name from The Bureau of Biological S m e y to The Divhion of Predator Animal and Rodent ControlThe Division of Predatory Animal and Rodent Control w a s formed in 1925. As t h e Bureau had not conducted surveys f o r 2 5 years, this new name m o r e accurately reflected i t s function. The Bureau had been involved in rodent as w e l l as coyote control. Rodents were considered to cause excessive damage to forests and crops
(USDI , 1945).
1-6- 1931: The
ADC ACT
In 1931, t h e guidelines f o r t h e new Division were Laid out by Congressional mandate. The A c t focussed on t h e "eradication, suppression, or bringing under control
...
coyotes...
and o t h e r animals injurious to...
animal husbandry...
and f o r t h e protection of stock and o t h e r domestic animals through t h e suppression of ra- bies" (Appendix I). I t is interesting to note that the p r e d a t o r control program was s p a r k e d into existence with t h e outbreak of t h e r a b i e s epidemic and t h a t t h e suppression of r a b i e s i s a key element in t h e 1931 A c t . Although t h e act was passed by a majority of t h e House, even at this time a f l i c k e r of opposition existed.A representative from Missouri w a s t h e dissenter:
A t a glance i t is doubtful what fitting title should b e given to t h e Bill. but it certainly can b e classified as a destructive measure. I t s purpose is to destroy
-
destroy everything in t h e way of wild animals f r o m a mountain Lion to a field mouse...
Fur bearing animals. not destructive in any way, are being killed by t h e thousands duo to t h e fact t h a t they eat t h e poison t h a t is s c a t t e r e d around f o r t h e ground squirrels, p r a i r i e dogs, jack rabbits, pocket gophers, porcupines, woodchucks, field mioe, and so forth.Although t h e goal of t h e Federal Control Program was not formalized until t h e passing of t h e 1931 Act, i t had remained unchanged sinoe t h e e a r l y y e a r s of t h e Bureau of Biological Survey. This goal was to control (eradicate or suppress) coy- otes in o r d e r to p r o t e c t livestock and enhance the productivity of t h e western ranges. The methods employed to accomplish t h i s task had not changed from those utilized in suppressing t h e r a b i e s outbreak. The response to t h e r a b i e s epidemic had been to r e d u c e the coyote population as much as available funds and manpower would allow. When this epidemic w a s over, t h e same technique of population reduc- tion w a s used to c u r t a i l livestock losses.
During t h e 1920s and 1930s opposition to t h e p r e d a t o r control program in- creased. Some people complained t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e public at l a r g e w e r e not taken into account, although t h e issue clearly included t h e use of public lands and resources. The stockmens' influence in Congress was suggested as a r e a s o n f o r this.
As I look at t h e matter. t h e fight i s between t h e stockmen. who have enor- mous influence in Congress, and t h e rest of us who have no influence at all (Merriam, 1932).
However, during t h e difficult eoonomic times of t h e 1930s t h e predator oontrol program provided jobs for many of t h e unemployed.
1.7. 1939: RPaponsibility for the Divhsion of Predatory Animal and Bodent Control Shifts from The US Department of Agriculture to the US Department of the Interior
In 1939, responsibility f o r predator and rodent control was moved from t h e Department of Agriculture to t h e Department of t h e Interior. The Division's f i r s t formalized policy statement, issued in 1940, suggested t h a t t h e management of ooy- otes would b e one of control and not eradication and t h a t conservation interests m u s t be considered. Policy statements in the 1950s and 1960s contained similar clauses.
. . .
t h e management of injurious species of wild animals has been and w i l l continue to be one of control r a t h e r than of complete eradimtion. The Service is not embarked on a general extermination program; but, with every p r o p e r consideration f o r conservation interests, it has as i t s ob- jective in this field t h e adequate control of injurious mammals, so as to reduce to t h e minimum t h e economic losses f o r which they are responsi- ble.Early Research mrts: When t h e p r e d a t o r control program was t r a n s f e r r e d to t h e USDI, the Division of Wildlife became responsible f o r predator researoh.
This r e s e a r c h was a one- or two-man e f f o r t which extended o v e r 20 y e a r s (USFWS.
1977). During this period, r e s e a r c h focussed on testing new control methods. The use and efficiency of bait stations and strychnine drop-baits was studied and t h e i r effectiveness compared with t h a t of t h e t r a p . The effects of oontrol methods on o t h e r wild species were also evaluated (USFWS, 1977).
Poison-impregnated bait stations w e r e used in t h e federal control program in t h e early 1940s. Tallium sulfate was t h e original toxicant used, but by t h e late 1940s i t w a s replaced by Compound 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate), a substance which w a s less expensive, more accessible and easily deployed as i t w a s water solu- ble. Compound 1080 w a s injected into t h e carcass of a freshly killed sheep or horse. The carcasses w e r e left, throughout the winter, in an a r e a Likely to b e fre- quented by coyotes. F r o m 1949 to 1972, approximately 1500 stations were set out each year. They extended over approximately 15% of Idaho (USFWS records, Boise).
In t h e late 1949s, 'myote-getters' were introduoed. A coyote-getter is a small set gun which shoots a cyanide loaded shell into the mouth of t h e predator when i t tugs on the bait. Because of t h e tool's lack of refinement and "the success of pois- on bait stations, chances were reduced f o r quick acceptance of t h e control device"
(USFWS, 1977). Once initiated into the predator control program, t h e coyote- g e t t e r was used in Idaho until the early 1970s, when it was replaced by the M-44, a springactivated version. This tool has t h e advantage of being relatively selective when i t is properly placed and used with t h e appropriate scent.
Planes were used f o r t h e sport hunting of coyotes as early as 1935. By 1948, planes were incorporated into the Idaho Federal Control Program. A e r i a l gunning w a s utilized as a method of coyote cantrol along with bait stations, coyote-getters, ground shooting, trapping, snaring and d r o p baits.
1.8. 1960s
A
Surprise from the Social Syrtem-
Changing Social Objectives A s m a l l faction of the American public had been opposed to t h e federal government's predator control policy since t h e early y e a r s of t h e program. The number of dissenters increased, as time passed and by t h e end of 15 y e a r s of a toxicant-oriented program, the federal government w a s surprised by a l a r g e number of people who were opposed to its coyote oontrol policies.By the 1960s many social objectives had changed. More A m e r i m became aware of and concerned with the environment in general and t h e management of public lands and wildlife in particular. S h a r p (1981) suggests that a n increased standard in living and a resultant increase in time f o r quality of life f a c t o r s played an impartant role in this shift in priorities. Essentially, more time was available f o r recreational pursuits and aesthetic interests. Also concerns began to be ex- pressed f o r environmental quality and limits to growth. Concern was expressed re- garding possible impacts of management practices on t h e ecosystems. [In Idaho public lands constitute 60% of the state (USFW records, Boise).]
Some citizens opposed t h e killing of coyotes while o t h e r s were concerned t h a t control methods b e humane. Some Americans had never seen a coyote. but wanted to know t h a t t h e animals were safe, not only from extinction, but also from suffer- ing. Members of t h e public, as w e l l as s o m e individuals involved in predator con-
trol, expressed m n c e r n o v e r t h e effects of coyote control on non-target speoies.
1.9. 1965: The Federal Berponse
-
A Policy Study Results in a New Policy Document and a C h a n g e in Name f r o m TheBranch
of Predator and Bodent Control to T h e Division of Wildlife ServicwIn 1964, in response to "public clamor" (Cain, et. al., 1972). Secretary of t h e Interior Udall, requested his Advisory Board on Wildlife Management "investigate t h e r o l e and p m c t i c e s of t h e federal government in animal damage control and to
recommend changes, if needed, to ensure a n environmentally sound and socially ac- ceptable Federal Animal Damage Control Program."
The Leopold Report concluded t h a t t h e control program needed to be modified
to r i d i t of c e r t a i n excessive control pmctices, however, a federal program of p r e d a t o r control w a s considered necessary to address t h e needs of t h e sheep in- dustry. The r e p o r t s t r e s s e d t h e importance of native animals to t h e American peo- ple. I t suggested t h a t government policy should be one of husbandry to all animals and t h a t animal damage control should focus on the depredating individual. The study also found Compound 1080 to be a relatively humane and effective method of damage control.
The recommendations of t h e Leopold Report were as follows:
1. A longer term Advisory Board on p r e d a t o r and rodent control b e appoint- ed with members f r o m all major community and public i n t e r e s t groups;
2. The Branch of P r e d a t o r and Rodent Control change its name and reassess i t s function and purpose in light of t h e changing public attitude and knowledge about wildlife;
3. A new explicit set of criteria to guide control decisions b e formed;
4. A greatly expanded wildlife r e s e a r c h progmm b e developed; and
5. The use of 1080 or any o t h e r poison capable of having s e v e r e secondary effects on non-target wildlife species be closely regulated.
In 1967, t h e federal government released a formal p r e d a t o r control policy statement based on t h e Leopold r e p o r t (Appendix 11). This policy statement gave t h e men a t t h e operations level t h e guidelines f o r t h e i r work. Basically, these guidelines were:
-
Animal damage control will b e conducted to achieve definite plan go&:protection of human health and safety, protection of urban areas, pro- tection of f o r e s t and range, protection of c r o p s and livestock.
-
Animal damage control, as performed by t h e Bureau, is d o n a d as t h e management of damaging bird and mammal populations at levels oonsistent with the needs and activities of man and includes environmental manipula- tion, reduction, t h e use of repellents and cultural methods.-
The Bureau's animal damage control program will be designed in a m n n e r which will ensure t h e maintenance of t h e varied native wildllfe and wildlife habitats of t h e United States.-
In conducting this program, t h e Bureau must also be mi- of its responsibilities f o r protecting wildlife resources.-
I t i s an objective of t h e Bureau to reduce animal depredation as selec- tively as possible, and to d i r e c t control at t h e depredating individual or local depredating population.For t h e control agent in t h e field, t h e job was still to p r o t e c t sheep by controlling coyotes.
In response to t h e Leopold Report, some of t h e changes t h a t were made to
"ensure a socially acceptable Fedeml Animal Damage Control Program" were: t h e name of t h e control program w a s changed from 'The Branch of P r e d a t o r and Rodent Control" to 'The Division of Wildlife Services" and the Division was given
"increased responsibility in wildlife enhancement"; t h e field agents were en- couraged to become involved in public activities and t h e enhancement of intm- duced species w a s suggested because "wildlife transplants always have a great deal of public appeal" and changes in basic control terminology were introduced.
1.10. 1971: Another surprise from the Social Syrrtem and a
New
Policy StudyIn March of 1971, t h e federal government met with y e t another surprise. Civil actions "requesting a n injunction prohibiting t h e use of toxic chemicals f o r wildlife damage control and certain o t h e r relief," had been filed against t h e USDI by t h e Council f o r t h e Defenders of Wildlife. S i e r r a Club and t h e Humane Society of t h e United States. These repercussions were unexpected. Modifications in t h e Preda- tor Control Program were considered to have been made as a result of the Leopold
Report. However, segments of the public felt t h a t t h e modifiaations made, were in- significant.
The Department of the Interior, along with t h e Council on Environmental Qual- ity, responded to this s u r p r i s e by appointing a committee directed to "study the e n t i r e predation damage situation in t h e United States." The Committee ap- proached t h e problem by analyzing t h e response to t h e Leopold Report. The r e s u l t s of t h e study w e r e published as the Cain Report of 1971. The Cain Report concluded t h a t , although progress had been made in updating predator control ac- tivities, the recommendations of t h e Leopold Report had not been implemented. I t s t a t e d t h a t "the basic machinery of t h e Federal cooperative-supervised program contains a high d e g r e e of built-in resistance to change" and suggested t h a t t h i s was because t h e r a n c h e r s financed approximately half of t h e program and because t h e field personnel had not changed.
The Cain Report advocated substantial changes in the predator aontrol pro- gram and s t r e s s e d that policy must take full account of t h e e n t i r e spectrum of pub- lic interests and values. I t suggested t h a t legislated changes were needed in t h e areas of financing. personnel and control methods.
The basic recommendations of t h e Gain Report were:
1. The Division of Wildlife staff should b e professionalized by emphasizing employment of qualified biologists;
2. A cooperative t r a p p e r training program should be established in all states;
3. Congress should provide some m e a n s of alleviating the economic burden on livestock producers who experience heavy losses to predators;
4. Program funding should be exclusively by congressional and state leg- islative appropriation; and
5. All existing toxic chemicals should b e removed from registration and use f o r f e d e r a l operational p r e d a t o r control, with similar restrictions at t h e state level.
1.U. 1972: A P o l i c y Bcveral
-
Compound 1080 and Other T o x i c a n t . arc Itemwed from UK in T h e F e d e r a l Predator ControlIn 1972, President Nixon placed a ban on Compound 1080 and other toxic chemicals used in Federal control programs or on Federal lands. I t was suggested t h a t effective alternatives existed. The ban w a s brought about by Executive Order 11643 and was followed by the Environmental Protection Agencies' amcellation of registration of these toxicants. Another recommendation t h a t w a s implemented w a s the employee educational upgrading program. Trapper training programs were not established. Kansas and Missouri had established t h e i r extension programs many y e a r s earlier and these had shown positive results (Gier, 1968). Livestock owners ccntinued to finanoe approximately 50Z of t h e predator m n t r o l program. A com- pensatory program to offset heavy losses to the Woolgrowers w a s not established.
The livestock owners severely criticized t h e policy changes t h a t resulted from t h e Cain Repart. They claimed that the decision to ban toxiaants w a s based on questionable assumptions as w e l l as vague and conflicting evidence. They noted that t h e results of the Cain Report were in conflict with those of the Leopold Re- p o r t , which had started t h a t Compound 1080 was a safe and selective tool. Furth- ermore, t h e Woolgrowers were disturbd as they had been promised a preliminary review of both reports, but this had never occur-red.
On t h e o t h e r hand, segments of the public, who had opposed earlier policies, were appeased by t h e removal of t o x i a n t s f r o m t h e federal control program. The interests of t h e Environmentalists were reflected in t h e National Environmental A c t of 1969 and t h e 1973 Endangered Species Act, as w e l l as Executive O r d e r 11643 banning toxicants. These acts emphasized t h e responsibility of t h e Secre- tary for all wildlife species and t h e i r environment. The W o o l g r o w e r s and ADC agents felt their interests were being ignored.
1-12. 1974: A C h a n g e in Name from T h e Divirion o f Wildlife Semces to T h e Animral Damage Control Program
The Animal Damage Control Program w a s formed in 1974. ADC agents c l a i m t h a t this change in name w a s to emphasize that t h e program's purpose w a s to con- trol animal damage.
In 1974, as a result of t h e toxicant ban, a number of suits and countersuits be- gan to be exchanged between two opposing factions. One faction consisted of t h e USDI and t h e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The o t h e r faction consisted
of the Woolgrowers Associations and the State Governments who were opposed to t h e removal of toxicants from t h e federal predator control program. A conflict also arose with t h e Wyoming Department of Agriculture who continued training ap- plicants to use Compound 1080 in m e a t baits f o r predator control on state and private lands.
By 1975, Executive Order 1163, which had banned federal toxicant use, was modified. Sodium cyanide was made available f o r experimental use and in t h e fol- lowing y e a r w a s registered f o r use in the M-44. The application w a s limited to government agents and certified individuals. The M-44 onoe again became a n operational tool, however. i t w a s subject to many restriotions. The Environmental Protection Agency refused to register the toxicants f o r general use because of in- sufficient data to demonstrate t h a t t h e i r benefits w e r e g r e a t e r than t h e r i s k s in- ourred by their use. In 1977, special permission was given f o r t h e experimental use of Compound 1080 in t h e toxic collar.
Research in t h e ZD70s: As a result of the ban on toxicants and p r e s s u r e from both livestock and environmental groups, increased funding was made available f o r predator research in t h e 1970s (Table 1). Funds were allocated f o r improving con- trol methods, assessing sheep damage and studying predator ecology and behavior.
The proportion of funds allotted to these various projects is shown in Table 2. Lit- tle, if any, funds w e r e made available either to study t h e nature of t h e problems in- volved in the predator control issue, or to assess t h e long-term objectives of t h e Animal Damage Control Program.
A census technique w a s established to determine t h e effect t h a t t h e toxicant removal would have on overall coyote numbers. This technique, which ts still used today, utilizes 400 scent station Lines in 1 7 states. Each h e has 50 stations placed every 0.3 miles on alternating sides of an unimproved road. The scent station is a three-foot circle of sifted e a r t h with an odor attractant placed in t h e center. An- imal visits, based on tracks, are recorded daily f o r each station f o r a period of five consecutive days each September.
After t h e toxicant ban, livestock interests and environmental groups pres- sured the government to find alternative methods of coyote control. Research in the 1960s had attempted to limit coyote populations by t h e use of reproductive in- hibitors. Coyote control r e s e a r c h throughout t h e 1970s also focussed on non- lethal devices. Studies were conducted on adversive agents and predator repel- lents and limited r e s e a r c h w a s done on guard dogs. Some experiments were done on lethal control methods. Research w a s conducted on t h e toxic collar; a poison-
Table 1. Fish and Wildlife Service total ACD research funds, and funds for preda- tor research of FWS, USDA, and EPA, fiscal year 1970-1978.
Total ADC Researchs Predator Research Fiscal
Year Actual . Constant 1 967 $ FWS USDA
Permanent full-time employees in parentheses.
"Transition quarter, July 1,
-
Sept 30, 1976.'
Includes $300,000 from EPA for toxic collar research'
Transition Quaner included in fT 1977 total.'
Overhead costs not excluded.Table 2. hurds for Fish and Wildlife Service predator research by type of research, fiscal year 1970-1978.
Predator
Ecology Total $
and Damage
F i s c a l Year Methods Behavior Assessment Actual Constant 1967
*
Transition quarter, July 1-
Sept.30, 1976**
Includes $300,000 from E . P . A . f o r t o x i c c o l l a r researchfilled o o h r which is placed around t h e neck of a rracrificial lamb. This Lamb is PCP sitioned in a situation where it will be vulnerable to predation. Behavioral studies of ooyotes have shown that they generally kill a sheep by biting its neck.
1-19. 19771 A Presidential Statmmt on Predator Control
The President of the United States included, in his 1977 environmental mes- sage, a special clause concerned with predator control policy. He stated that since predators plan a n important role in various ecosystems. t h e goal of a control program must not be to destroy them but to minimize t h e i r conflict with livestock.
He reported that his administration would continue to support t h e toxicant ban and t h a t if control was necessary it should focus on t h e predators causing the problem and not the species as a whole.
...
t h e public's interest in wildlife specifically includes predators, which have in the past sometimes been regarded as competitors f o r livestock or game, leading to their destruction (and in t h e case of s o m e Large preda- tor species, to t h e i r extermination). Because w e now realize t h e impor- tance of t h e role that predators play in various ecosystems, our goal should not b e to destroy them but to reduce t h e maasion f o r t h e i r con- flict with livestock. My Administration will continue to support the exist- ing Executive Order which prohibits the routine use of poisons f o r kiUing predators on public lands. If control is necessary, it should focus on the individual predators causing the problem-
not t h e species as a whole...
Pursuant to the President's message, a statement w a s circulated through t h e USFWS by t h e Associate Director. It emphasized that t h e objective of t h e predator control program was the selective control of depredating individuals or local p pulations and sanctioned t h e lise of preventative methods only in areas of historic losses to predators (Appendix 111).
The President of the Woolgrowers Association wrote a l e t t e r to t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e Interior. The livestock owners were dissatisfied'with t h e existing program and wanted a number of changes (Rich, 1979). Some of t h e changes they wanted w e r e :
-
A 75% increased utilization over five y e a r s of existing control tech- niques;-
Increased r e s e a r c h efforts to develop a suitable toxicant;-
Increased preventative control in areas of historic high losses;-
Accelerated mechanical control use;-
Emergency use of 1080 under strict federal supervision:-
Adequate funding and personnel to make t h e program effective in t h e field; and-
A five-year joint USDI-livestock industry assessment of t h e program's ef- f ectiveness.1-14. 1977: The Federal Guve~pment ksponds with a Policy Study
In 1977, t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e Interior responded to t h e aonaerns o v e r preda- tor control with a policy study on t h e problem. This study generated:
-
An investigation of t h e federal control program operations by t h e Offiae of Audit and Investigation;-
A lengthy r e p o r t entitled 'Wedator Damage in t h e W e s t : A Study of Coy- ote Management Alternatives";-
Four public hearings located in Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, and Washington;and
-
An environmental impact statement.The Office of Audit and Investigation concluded t h a t t h e "Fish and Wildlife S e r - vice (FWS) uannot effectively determine whether t h e estimated expenditures of $8 million dollars in fiscal y e a r 1978 had a significant impact on t h e prevention of livestock lasses by predators in areas where ADC methods w e r e utilized." An inade- quate data base w a s identified as a major problem area. Information w a s incom- plete in snch a r e a s as t h e number of livestock protected and t h e total number of Lfvestock lost to predation. The r e p o r t , "Predator Damage in t h e W e s t , " summar- ized existing information on p r e d a t o r control and surveyed a l t e r n a t e methods of predator management.
Three public opinion studies w e r e included in t h e 1977 r e p o r t , "redator Damage in t h e West." These studies elucidated conflicting values between t h e live- stock owners and segments of t h e general public. Major public concerns were specificity and humaneness in control methods. K e l l e r t ' s (1976) interviews with 553 randomly selected individuals in t h e United S t a t e s are summarized in Table 3.
