Coyote (Canis latrans)

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Coyote (Canis latrans)"

Transcription

1 University of Nebraska - Lincoln of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service December 2003 Coyote (Canis latrans) Marc Bekoff Eric M. Gese USDA, Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Bekoff, Marc and Gese, Eric M., "Coyote (Canis latrans)" (2003). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of of Nebraska - Lincoln.

2 Bekoff, bl.. and E. M. Gae Coyote (Canzs inmons). Pqa in Wild ~~ of Xorth.lmaica: Biola~, Mmqacnt and Cm-Uoq 2d doon Edrred by G. A Feidhamer B C. Thompson and J 4 Chapman. Johns Hopkrns Ihivenir). Press. Bakimure, Llqlund Coyote Cunls latram Marc Bekoff Eric M. Gese NOMENCLATURE ~omov SAKES. Coyote, brush wolf, prairie waif, 9e.d woif, Steppen- &f. iobu,.hencm jackal; the word coyote means 'barking dog" and,,&en tiom the.\rrec word coyor1 ~cmmic Nhm. Canu lnrrans The coyotc is one of eight recoqizsd species in the genus Cmis. By &e late Pliocene, the ancesmi coyote, Cdnzs l<~ophnps, was swldespread in Sanh.America. The Eastem coyote, formerly reimed to 1s me 3ew Enziand cmld appears :o be a recent immigat, having prelomlnantly coyote ancesny with samc innogression of woif (C. lupus) anddag (C./Lmilinris) genes (Lawrence andbossert 1969, 1975; Silver md Silver!969; Bekoff et al. 1975; Hilton 1975; Wayne and Lehman Lehan s: al. (1991) and Wh~e md Lzhman (1992) presented cvidence that coyotes have interbred with wolves in arms,where wolves arc m e ma conspec5c mates may not be re~dily ava~lable. Subspecies. There ue 19 recognized subspecies of C. liltrum. Howzwr. because of the mob~liw of covores, the mteqnty of individual scbspecies and :heir monotic uhh& are quest~on;ible(liowak 1978). In chronolo~cal - order ofheino. name4 the subspecies are C 1. lurram. C 1. ochmpus, C. 1. co~ortis. C 1.fNsrmr C 1. lesre;, C 1, meumi, C. I. microdon. C. l.peninsu1oe C 1. vi~'lis, C 1. clrpfim, C 1. impavidm, C. 1, goidmani, C 1. rerenrls, C. 1. jnmrsi, C 1. dickeyi, C. 1. incolahu, C. I. honaurensis, C. I, thornnos, and C 1. umpqurnsls (Jackson 1951). Frcm Dismbution o ihr coyote!,cnnls iofram). Coyotes are Nearctic canids. They occupy many dive:se habitars between about IO"N latitude (Costa Rica) and 70"N latitude (norrhem.uaska). X~ey are found hubout the continend United States and in many areas of Canada (Fig. 22.1). In some southeastern states, suchas Clonda (Cunningham md Dunford and Georgia (,Fisher 1973, and sevexi emtern aaies, it appexs that coyotes wcre wanspianted lnuoduced or :ibcr;ired by humm (Schuitz 1955; Hill ct dl. 1987). See kloorc and Pxker (1992) br the hstory of coyote expansion md changes m dismbution. With ns abiliry to adapt to iill emonment mudified by humans, coyores are now obsexed in large cines (Shargo 1988; Qumn 1997% 199%; Gnnder md L-ausman 1998: F&el 1999). Coyores xe often coniused..with other ;mias, such as -my wolves, red wolves (C njls), and dornesnc dogs. Coyotes can successiully interbreed and produce fenile hybxds wirh dl these 3prcles (Dice 1942: Ksmelly md Robcm 1969; Kolenosky 1971). Howeve:, coyotes cx Uually be afierentiated (although overla? andhybddization can ucm: 'd~~lg serolo~c pume:ers, ienral ~.i.xac:erisncs. cmal measuremezts. ne-oanaromcai ie~nues. diame:er of the nose?ad diame:er 'frhe 'hind:oat?ad, :ar!engh, mck size. 3?r.ue irnph.?elqe. behav- :or. mo :ezrccs ;for re\ie.xs. see L~wrenc; md Bossen 1967: Bekoff 19-. Eider. and &yarn 1977>. For exampie, coyotes xe typically ' 3 % smaller than gray wolves (Table 22.11, thus the nose pad (about 25 nun in diameter) and hind foot pads (less than 32 mi are cor;espondiigiy smaller. Coyotes may be differentiated from dogs wig the ratio ofpalatal wdtb (distance beween the her mar& of the dveoii ofthe upper iirst molarsi to rhe leu& ofthe uppermolar toothrow (from the anterior mxgn of the aiveolus.>f the 5131 premolar to the posterior margin of the idst molar alveoiusj (Howard 1949). If ihe toothrow is 3.1 times the palad width, the spechen is a coyote; lf the raho is less than 2.7, the specimen is a dog (this method is about 95% reliable). Tie coyote has a relafively lager braincase than C 1u.pu.s Ovlech 1974). The coyote brain is anatomically different from that of gray wolves iradins!q 1973;.4tkms 1978). The wolf has a dimple in the middle of rhe coronal,ws, whexeas the coyote does not (see also.%dans and Dillon 1971). Tnere is no wedap when comparing large coyotes :o small wolves ln zygomatic breadth (greatest distance across qgomarai, gestest length of the skull, or bite raoo (wdth across the outer edges of the alveoli oithe mrerior!obes ofthr uppx camassials divided by the length oithe upper rnolar:oothrow) (Pmdiso andxowak 1971'1. C larronr is usually smaller than C.?Em and there is almos1 no ovenap between them m gestest length ai the skull. Red wolves ~iso have.: =ore pronounczd sadrtal crest -h coyotes.?iiuitivanate ;e:iruques :we cleariy shorn coyotes, wolves, and dogs can be dizerennated anaromcally!lawrence and Bosserr 1967; Eider md Bayden 197;) and behawiomlly (Bekoffer al. 1975; BekoE1978) and 467

3 TABLE 22.: Representanve mean coyote we~ghts kom a vanety of locales Add* &g) Juveniles Cxg: Sowe,Males Females Xaier Eeades Sf~*Wince Gier Kansas Hamhame M Cmomja Richens and Hqe Mame - Andrean and Boggess Iowa Berg and Chesness I? l&ll 10 Mhmesara Boggess and Henderson Kaasas Bmn Aikm L~Gtis Oklahoma,Umy md Bouim Yukoo Thurber and Peterson Alaska Windberg et al & G8.9 Te~as - Podle et al & Quebec Windberg Texas provide for more rigorous analyses than do univariate methods. Further rehement of genetic techsues will also assist in differentiation of thr canids (e.g; Lehman et a i 1991; Wilson et al. 2030). Size and Weight. Covotes are about 1-1.S m in bodv lenpth; the tail is about long. size varies with geographic lockle &d subspecies (Jackson 1951; Hall and Kelson 1959). Adult males are usually heavier and largcthan adult females (Table 22.1). Temporal changes in coyote momholommav. -.. be occunine insomeparts ofnorth America ( Sche and Lavlgne 1987, ~hurberand Peterson 1991), but see Lanwkre and CrEte (1993) and Peterson and Thurber (1993) for rev~ews and commenls. Pelage. The banded name of coyote hair is responsible for the appearance of the blended color, giay mixd wjth a reddish rint. Coyotes show great -miation in color, ranging from airnost pure gray to IU~OUS. Melanistic coyotes are rare (Young 1951; Van Wormer 1964; Gipson 1976; Mahan 1978). Texhlre and color of the fur also vary geographically In northern subspecies, the hair is longer and coarser. In desert habitats. coyotes tend to be fulvous, whereas those at higher latitudes are more gray and black (Jackson 1951). The belly and throat are paler than the rest of the body. Course guard hairs are about 5&90 mm long; in the mane, they tend to be mm. The!he underfur (up to 50 mm iongj has coronal-shaped cuticular scales (Adojan and KolenosA~ 1969; O ~le and Famis 1973). The summer coat is shoner than the winter coat. Coyote haumay be differentiatedfrom hair ofdogs and red foxes (Vuipes wipes) by the nurnbez, odder, and color of the bands, the cross-sectional mmslucence and shape, and the coronal scale pattern (Hilton and Kutscha 1978). Coyote hairs 9ically are coarser, longer, larger in diameter, and rougher and stiffer The coyote's fur is similar in insulative value to that of the,my wolf (Ogle and Fams 1973). The critical temperature of C. lavans is -10 C (Shield 1972). When wearhg the shoner summer coat, there is a decrease of about 87% in thermal conduaivlty (Ogle and Farris!973). There is usually one main molt between late spnng and an-. About 50 mm down from the base of the tail there is an oval rail gland (JIiidebrand 1952). Skull and Dentition. Among adult coyotes, males show greater development of the sagtttai crest than females. The dental formula is I 313. C 111, P 414..M 2!3 (Fig. 22.2). The skull of a mature male is about mm long from the tip of the premaxilla to the posterior rim of the coronal cres (Gier 1968) and weighs between 170 and 210 g. PHYSIOLOGY Central Nervous Svstem. Althou& the cerebrum and cerebellum With respea to cerebellar morphology, coyotes may be distinguished fiom all other canids as follows: The anterior lobe is more than one half the rota1 width. the pardoccular process is relatively prominen\ the vermian lobule reaches its greatest size, there are fewer and larger posterior hemispheric foiia, the posterior ventral pard3occular limb is reduced in size, and there is a broad vermian hvist (Atkins 1978). The remainder of the cennal nervous system, the brain stem and spinal cord is similar to that of the domestic dog. Adrenals. Coyote adrenals are similar m smchlre to those of most other canids (Heinrich 1972). In males and females, the lefi adrenal is heavier than the right, and the adrenals of females tend to be heavier than those of males. Audition and Vision. The region of maximal sensitivity to auditory shmuii is 10& Hzwith alimit ofa~~roxlmatelv 80 kfiz Petersen et al. 1969). The retina is duplex and hbs a prepdnderance'of rods. The absolute scotopic (rod) threshold is about 1.4 fi-candles and the adaptation curve shows distinct rokone b~&s (Horn and Lehei 1975). REPRODUCTION Genetics and Hybridization. The coyotehas 38 paus ofchromosomes (Wurster and Benkchke 1968). The autosomes are acrocenmc or teiocenmc and the sex chmmos&mes are submetlcenmc (Mech 1974). Fertile hybrids have been produced by matings of coyotes with domestic dogs (Dice 1942: Young 1951; Kennelly and Robexts 1969; Silver and Silver 1969; Mengel 1971), red and gray wolves (Young 1951; Kolenosky 1971; Paradiso andnowak 1971; Mey andmcbride 1975). and goldenjackals (C. aureus; Seie 1965). Cayotedog hybrids exhibit decreased fecundty (Mengel 1971; Gipson et al. 1975). Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is becoming problematic for red wolf recovery in the southeast United States. Anatomy and Phvsiology. -. There are no detailed reporrs of the gross or mcroscipic anatomy of coyote reproductme systems. Patterns arepro ductive hormones and reproductive behaviors in coyotes have been de- reproductive anatomy andpbysiology, there appearto be only -or differences., if am... between covotes and domestic dogs (Kennelly 1978). Berg and Chesness (1978) found no correlation be&eencarcass we~ght and ovarian weight (n = 105, r =,218,~ >.05). Kennelly (1971, 1978) documented spermatogenesis and the estrous qcie. Proestrus lasrs about 2-3 months and e m up to 10 dqvs. depending on locale (Hamlet? 1939; KenneUy 1978). Copulanon ends with the copularory Yie." during which h e (up to 25 min) the male's penis is locked in the female's va- (Grandage 1972). Juvenile males and fenales are able to breed (see below), although juvenile females may date less than adult females.

4 .J..],1 L~:-.-,..,re naunr:ag itrsrr.co by Xr mde ;nu ~ :il -la2 her-ali :c one j:dc &%en %~n.g. ;he male rreps ovsr the krmie's 5acx an11 &e sauple reaalr. lccksd it :SO' for ip io ihi same?ax nay ired iom ye= :o year, bur nor neitssaciy for!ze. ;\iui! csyores may nmw p a boc& and \wheip Jr slre pups even wnen!&i2 yem oiage igese i990). Pregnancy Rare. Cestntion. and Litter Size. Tbe?er;:suge of ;emales dia bred m a gvex :,exu.v&<es wt;h :ocai cmdidons (Gier i 968; FL?owlton 19-2; Gipsan :? i. '9775: Gese 6r xi.!989a; K?owlton md Gese 1995). Fuod slipply :s usudly :he prime izi:or; in :ood yeus. nore females, especially jsxkgs. breed (Cie: '.968; Kilowiton ma Gssc :995). Uslliily, about 6&90!6 oiaddt :emales md &:09'i or' female year!ings.~:ll produce 1972; Gese et a]. 1989a;.Knowi;on st ). Tne gestest mual v,r;ation ;n ;he number cibrecding females is :e!ated to the number oijuveailes that become sexuai;:, mature (Xnowlton 1972; Kexelly 1175; Gese c: il. 1989a). ;\duits may show mois placental scars &an yr~:ings: however, Neilis md Kt:& (19761:eported that the diffcrsnce was nor itatisticaily sigruficanr. Gicr (1975) esrhated rhat the number ofyoung born was about 80% ofthe ova shed and Knowlton (1972) esrimated that about 87% oiimpiants wcr: represented by viable young. Gipson et al. (1975) reportrd ti:e =can number of ova per breeding female was 6.2, with 4.5 (T?') becoming irnpimrcd. Hanlert (1939) and.bdei1(!96.1) reported that 85-92?4 of cmbvos de.ielop into viabie young. Gestationlasts approxlmarely 63 days. Avemgelitter slze is 6, but it :s known that liite: size is affected by population ds::siry and food mailablliry the previous w!mer (Xnowlton 1972: Gese <: al. i996a. 1996b; Knowlton st ). Knowiton (1972) reported avenge liner sizes of J.3 at h19.i popuianon densities and 6.9 at low densiiies. Gier (1968) re;rorted tie ~Eicts of hod on litter size. Duing ;~exs oihgh rodent dtnsir): mem liner size is hi&er (S.84.2: than h years ui reduced densities of rodents (44-5 1). In nonhen? iiimcs, coyote litte: size c5anges in :espanse to cycles of sno\vshoc hares (Lepus omericunus) (Todd it a]. 1981; Todd and Keith 1933; C3Donoghue e: l. 1997). Gcs; er al. (1996a) hund an increxse h coyote lice: sue afier coid snowy winters ic Yellowstone Yanonai Park. Wiiren wtb harsh temperatures and lie? snow incre3srd!he number of mgu1;lte carcasses (because of soy016 predation and ~~eather) available to odatmg females. The sex ratio oflittcrs is generally i:l, though it may be skewed toward females in ares oibigh ~xploiration &owlton 1972; Berg and Chcsness 1973; Keiman and Brady 1978; Gese et d. 1989ai. F:c SMI of the coyote (Cmms lirianr). From tap ro bunom: laced eew oicrmum i~rcnl mew oimanciiblc. hnd view aicmum vclltni vie;" oicmm. dorsal new aimandr'nle. blaies and females show annual q~cii changes m rqroductive anatomy =d phys:ology (Kennelly 1978). Females ue seasonally monestrus, showing one period of '%~JI" per year, usdly dunng January and blxch. depending on ~eogmphic loc~le (Hamien 1939: Gier 1968; Kcnneily 1978). P3iT Bonding. Tae dynamics of hete~osexd pair bonding are not known ior d d cayores in any detal. Data on cqtive indinduals do not appru to &Err sipficantly Erom those forw4dcogores. Caunship nay be~n as long as 3-3 mocihs before succzssiui copulation 1Bekoff and Diamond 1976)..&soc~ated c:iar,gm in behavior iave been <ercn'ccd esoeaalb inczezes m iccnr nar:mg and bowling ubsemed ar me bermmg of~.c breedins rmsm ibekotyau31amona :9-6: Wsils md a&d 198:: ECC~~S!ZOO: GCSC ma RUI? 1%- :%x). ~ur=y exiv. surirs. 31 comsaip. -he maie ';cc3mes lnc1~3~in'~i:i ~mc:ed :o he i'cmje's m e and feczs. RJcn he femaie is re3dy ro copulate, she ;o :he base ofthe tii1 is 2bour 160 mm (Gier 1968: ~ekoft&d ~amiesan 1975).Eyes opeontabout 14 days. Tetherupton thesverxyc as follows: upper curs, day 14; lower c~xnes ind upper incison, day 15: md lower incisors, day 16 (Bekarl and Jmeson 197S). Tnz young are xbiu to wnnte and defecate on theu own by 2-3 weeks. They emerse from xhc dm at about 3 weeks. Ycunq arc cared for by the mother and by other "helpers,' usdly siblings fram s prcxous yex (Brkoorf and Wells 1980: Hatier 1995). Food ~rovisioning ofthe female may occm dunng ihe nursmg period (~arkr 1995). 6 c lpha male md orbrr ass~ciates will dso help to rex the young by providing food as the young gow older (Hatier 1995). Young are ~eaned at about 5-7 wee.h (Snow 1967). Tney be~m to sat solid food at about 3 weeks. when the caregvers reprgmte semisolid ibod. Beween bmh and week 8, averaxe weight increase is about 310 stweek. Tne pups reach adldt we:ght ar about 9 months. ECOLOGY >lore :s know about he ecolog oi ;oyotrs -Sar.?erh~s any other carnivore IBeioiT 2001~). Co"otes ocxpy a vw,,ey of ilabiuts. inoicding g3ss;ancs. iescns, ma.mountam.?ills? lo not icmpi:e Well ~,rh iqc: cjriuvorcs xi xay be hilcd by them or ivo~d areas ad hablraz >cc~~.ed hy these s?ec:rs. Studies $ax documenred direct md ndoke~: -ompencon with larger cmlvares, mch 3s waives (Mech

5 1966,1974; Kreftmg 1969:Fuile:andKelth 1981: Tnurberetal. 1991: Peterson 1995:.Qo and Pierschrr 1999: Crabtree and Sheldon 1999) and cougan, Puma concolor rioung 1951; Boyd and C'Gm 1985; Koehler andhomocker 1991:,Murphy 1998)..4qoandP!erscher (1999) documented behamoral chanses in coyotes after several years oi m- cremed wolf abunhce innorthwestem Montana. Paquet ( ) reported that coyotes did not spaualiy avoid waives, bur actually followed their hails and scavenged woif-killed ungulates. Inten~eciiic killing amem.. to be common m carnivore communities (Peterson 1995: Palomares and Caro 1999). In Yellowstone National Park, Crabtrez and Sheldon (1999) ;:ported that wolves killing coyotes during the umters of 1997 and 1998 reduced coyote numbers: average ~ack size decreased!?om 6covotes to4 ia33% aechei. However. Gese et al. (1996% 1996b) documented simiar annual vanations m coyate pack sies in the same area in the absence of wolves. Average pack size changed from 4.6 to 6.8 coyotes during tbree winters (199&93) seven1 vears before wolf reinuoduction. an increase of 32%. Thus. annual variation in coyote pack sue and population size amibuted to wolf reinnoduction should be viewed in the context of baseline population data that documented these same fluctuations had occurred before wolf reintroduction. Changes in the abundance of food resources, mdy cyclic lagomorph populations, causes even greater muai vaxiations (3-10 times) in coyore populations than populations exposed to wolves (Todd et al. 1981; Knowlton and Stoddart 1992; O'Donoghue et d. 1997). Duect predation and competition for food and space with wolves may limit coyote numbers in some areas and under iemin environmental conditions (Peterson 1995; Ajo and PletscSer 1999). Coyotes may not to1e;ate red foxes in some areas (Voiy and Earle 1983; Major and Sherbume 1987: Sargeant e? d. 1987: Harrison et al. 1989; ~&~eant and Men 1989), butappear to be mare tolerant of red foxes when food a abundant (Gese et d. 1996d). Coyotes also benveen coyotes &d these small canids is typically mediated by resource partitioning (Rails and W'ite 1995; m te et al. 1995; Cypher and Spencer 1998; Kitchen et d. 1999). Bobcats (Lynr ru/us) also may not be well tolcrated by coyotes(yaung 195l), but Major and Sherbme (1987) foundno evidence of interference competirion between bobcats and coyotes. Soule e? al. (1988) and Crooks and Soul= (1999) reported that coyotes in southern California apparently connol the abundance and dismhution of smaller predators. In the absence of coyotes, these mesopredators (i.e., foxes and feral cats) increzse m densit). They prey on narive bird species and negatively impact the avifaunal cornmunit/ Henke and Bryant (1999) documented that coyotes were considered a keystone predator shaping faunal community smcture in west Texas. Population Regulation. Popuiation demopphics of coyotes have been studied throughout North America (e.g., Gier 1968; Knowlton 1972; Todd andkeith 1983; Windherg 1995). They exhih~taland-tenure system of exclusive territories (Camenrind 1978; Bowen 1981, 1982; Messier and Barrette 1982; Windberg and Knowlton 1988; Knowlton and Gese 1995), and with resident packs. they display a dominance hierarchy similar to that of wolves (Camenrind 1978; Bowen 1978; Bekoff and Web 1986; Gese et a]. 1996a). Tne social orgamization and land-tenure system mediate the re~lat~on aicoyote numbers as packs space themselves across the landscape in relation to availabie food and habitat (Knowlwn and Stoddart 1983; Bekoff and Welis 1986; Gese er al. 1988% Knowiton and Gese 1995; Knowlton et al. 1999). The social hierarchy and dominance smcrure among members of resident packs also iniluence accessibility to food resources (Gese e: d. 1996a. 1996%). Older. expenencedpack members are more succzssfd hunters of lar_ee prey (Gese and Grothe l995), have geater access to?logdate carcasses (Gese et al. 1996b), and are more proficient hunters of small mammals (Gese 2t a!. 1996~). Trarsienr or nomadic coyotes aiso exist across the landsczpe (Camenzmc 1978; Bowen 1982 BekoiT and We!ls i980: Fese e! al. 1988a) and may nove in10 terncones wheneve; vacancies occur. T.am Coyote densrties in different geoppkic areas and seasocs Source Glcr :968 Knowitan 19iZ Chesness and Brcrmcker 1974 Neh and Kath 19i6 B-n 1978 Todd et al Pvrah 1984 ~.- Gesc et al.!989a Babb andkmedy 1989 O'Donagbue et ai Henke and Brvant 1999 Locsnon Denriv (hdi~duahh') Kansas 0.8* Texa3 0.9': :.5-2.3c.kesora 0.24.AL Ubem 0.146' AIbRta 0.46'; O X d Alberta 0.081)qdc Montana 0.15'; 0.39' -.exas 0.99 Colorado Tennessee Yukon F Texas ~ Coyote densiry varies geographically and seasonally (Table 22.3) in response to changing foodresources. Available food whether rabb~ts, rodents, or ungulates, is the major factor regulating coyote populations (Gier 1968; Clark 1972; Knowlton and Stoddart 1992; O'Donoghue et al. 1995). Numuonal pressures for hmited food resources are mediated'hroueh social dominance and territorialihi (Knizht 1978; Davison 1980; ~niwlton and Stoddart 1983; Gese et ;I. 1985a; Knowiton and Gese 1995, Wmdber~ 1995, Knowlton ct d. 1999). Food abundance Todd etal. i981; Todd &d Keith-1983; ~ idd 1985; Brkoff and Wells 1986; Mills and Knowlton 1991; Harrison 1992; Windberg 1995; Gese et d. 1996% O'Donoghue et al. 1997; Knowlton et al. 1999). In areas with hard winters, when carrion biomass is low, coyote pack sizes remain small and the core social unit subsists on small mammals (Gese et d. 1996a, 1996h). In contrast during winters when carrion biomass is gcater, more coyotes remain in their social groups and pack size increases (Gese et al. 1996% 1996b). In additioq domant individuals in resident packs have greater access to carcasses and are thereby less likely to disperse (Gese et al. 1996% 1996b). Thus, dominance plays an important role in regulating coyote numbers. Knowlton et al. (I 999) reported that the acquisition of a temtory is also important because resident coyotes are more apt to survive, have more breeding oppomnities, and are more likely to have access to carcasses in winter than are nansient individuals (.4ndelt 1985; Bekoff and Wells 1986; Gese et al. 1989% 1996a 1996b). Withln resident coyote packs, size and structure change seasonally (Xnowlton 1972; DavLFon 1980; Bekoff and Wells 1986; Gese et al. 1996a). Pack slze increases during the whelping season (April), followed bv a gad& decline as pups die or dsperse and associated pack membersdisperse dming as food re&urces become more 1972: Davison 1980; Gese et al. 1996a; Knowlton et al. 1999). If more food resources are available over wmter, pack size may mcrease (Gese et al. 1996a, 1996b). Effecn of Exploitation. There have been few studies of unexploited coyote populations (Andeb 1985; Bekoff and Wells 1986; Crabtree 1988; Gese et al. 1989% 1996% Wlndbeig 1995). These populations generally diffcr!?om expioitedpopuiations byhaving anolder age smc- we. h~gher sumival rates, lower reproduct~ve rates, her pack sue, and!owerrecruimentlnw the adultpopulation i.4ndelt 1985; Wmdm et al. 1985; Gese eta1 1989% 1996% 1996b: Widberg 1995; Knowiton et d. 1999). Under hig levels of exploiration coyote populations

6 ,.ailv have 1 :iol;r.ge: 3 % ~ scdc?r:. lower sum:yai,,hc:rasej num- 3,:;,~i:iczling3 rs?rciucsg, mcressd liner %re, and reiacve!y smdl,ac& (Cie: 1968: :L~owiron 19-2 Berg and C:kcsness 19-3: Cav:son 1980:.hdeit :987; :uowlton st C). L;ne; rze 2.y mc:ese due rc reduced coyor; ;ensir,,!ik;iy n respomc ro reducrd compt.5- tion for food (,bde!r ),,r brerdir.3 song younger females (jlmw-lton er d. 1999). pie E~xpretmcy. Cayares J: c3pr:vity may iivc as long u I8 :,ears piou~g i951!, bur 2 wtia?opuianons. 5fe sx?ec*imcy is considerably shorter. >I&vaum 1Zes re?oned fcr wid soyctss ae lj.5 (Xsiiis in6 %:th 1976), 14.5 (IGowitcn l9i3), and 15.5 yeas (Gese 19%)). Dens. Cayotes den in a vxetl, of placcs. iccluding brush-covered siopes, s:erp jar&. under rocx ledges. thicks:~, md hollow lcgs. Dcns oiother m,als. ulciudins badgers : Toxiden ims I, airc fiequentlyused. Eem mzy have more!ha one enmnce (Bmison and Gliben 1985) ad ohen there are many hrercamec:in~runnels. Dcns may be osenred :o 'he iourh :o mar.jrize solar radiation igier 1968; Hallen 1977; Harnsan and Ci?om 1982). The sme den :nay be used iiom yrx to year Dm iharaf occurs oniy rs;.ely (?jeiiis and Kdith 1976; Cmznzlnd 1978). >Iavement of pups &Tong dezs is vey cumon (Hamson and Gijben 198:). Rasons ior these moves nc nor known. but disrurbance (Harrison 3nd Giiben 1985) ind possibly iniesration by parasires may he hcrors. Most moves are rtia"vely shar;; however, moves oi >? hi are common iharnson md Gilben 1985). \in Wormer I 1964) reponed thaf a maie coyote mcved four pups, ir.dividually, a distance of 8.3 :a. T?x den and pup-rear,rz icn'rrties are the focal joint for coyore Pamilies far several months untd puns are iaizr and ;r.obzle,.hdelt e: al. 1979; 5zr;:son a d Gilben 1985; Bekodand Wells 1986; Haticr 1995). mnvity and Movements. Coyote:; xz acrive rhroushout the ;iv. but rend io be mure :ic:ivc dunng the sariy mornlng and iround sunset (WoodmE mu Keiler l?;i2:.r\ndrit 1985; Ccse er b). Gipson imxi Sealmdcr (1 9-: snowed a 9racrpal acrlvity pc~k at sunset and a mor peak at kaybicsk in.arkansas. Activity patterns may chmy sessonally (Hobman ei ai. l9923j or in response to human disrurbac: and persecution (Grse et al. i984b; Kitcirn et a). Sczonal ac:iv??, Fatterns dso are obvious, sspeciaily dunng wmer months, when there 1s a changeb food bae (Bskoffand Wells 1936: Gese et al. 1996a). For example, coyotes living in nonhen climates rest morz dmlng winter months, when they are drpendcnt pnmanly on ungulate canon fur food thandung other se~sdns, when they fe'eedmsinly on smali rodents (Bckoh~nd Wells I98 1. Gese et ai. 1996ai. Hunrmg artemprs also decrease durn5 winrer monks, when rodents are relatively inaccessible brxuse of snow-covered pun4 one of &r mijor rodent food item (Linta yround si;uir;eis, Spemoghillrs annotus) are hibemarme, and unplate whe~~b~liry to?redation incrr~ses wirh snow acc.mdanon T~LE 21.2 Average &stances of coyote disperrai movements from established home ranges!3skoi?;cc '&!Is!986; Grse,ad Grathe 13'11: Car 5: d. ;?o6ai T, concast S'rivlk e: ~i. (i999:) reponed i change :n coyore ic:~nty ieveis dwag.war&at i.z not.le?e-dent on a zhange :n prey base. They.heonzed jiar jic rejuced ac5nr:i!eveis heipea reduce :new expendimes ;r XI area ha linured food base. Coyotes m pack 1esr more and mt-ei less eduriig h e r months tban do coyotes iivlng as matedpxs or acne ibeko3ad Wells 1981, but see Gese cr al. lp96a). Large: :ne:-i savings have been shown far i prepant fernale living m 3 ;lack &an for a iemale living aniy wth her mate (Bekoff and Wells i981). Howeve:, it is unknown mhefier Femdes livmg lo pack irc eaer ahrepoduchvely because ili!he mrrp?.raved dunng Drewaccy..-. Cayores, sinuiar to wolves, are ;vpicaily rerrionai, md?rimmiiy rernaio mrhin thrr :e.nito~. However. they also aay makc ecxmrzmioriai movezcnts into nei&bnormg teaor.es. Dispersal from the nard site mliy be into a iacant or occupied temrop In m adjacent area or they may disperse lone distanczs (Xarrison er d In general, it is the pups ar subordinarc yearlings that typipicaily disperse (Knowiton 1972: Ne!lis and Keirh 1976; Berg and L3esness 1978: Gese et ai. 1989a. 1996a). Dispcrsal appears to be vaiuntaq a social mu nu*.- tional pressures inrensfi duing rhe winter md avauability and access to food becomes more lhired (Gese et ; Bekoff2001a). There xeno consistent sexdiiiereuczs m dispersal dismcz(gese e:d ; Han;son sr al. 199 I), alr!rough in one study, female pups moved farther than mde pups (Xellis and Keith 1976). D~spersai by juvcmles usually occurs during aurumn and early winter. rhougb same individuals do nor disperse durx~g the ijrsi yesr ma remain to prov~de cae for fitwe siblings (Kat:er 1995; Gcse et a]. 19R6a). D~spersal hc~renlon appears ro be random, and pups w~ll move %&I60 km (Bowen 1982; Gese er a!. l98ya), with record dispersai or54 km (Carbyn md Paquer 1986). Berg md CC:iesness (1978j reported mean dispersil disrmces of 48 h, w&ich occurred ar a mean rate of dour I1!m'week. Furays or ex- plor~rory rnuvmenrs xiso may occur beibre dispersal (Harrison st ai. 109 I). Increased morailty may be associated wirh &sped 3s h a i s move into imimiliai xes and low-jecunty hab~tats (Tnikowsh 1980; Pyrah 1981; Bekoffacd Weils 1986; Gese et XI. 198Ya). Observations of coyote dispersal are summarked UI Table Home Rnnpe - and Territo~. Home ranee - size oi coyotes has been smuied throu&our their nnge. Home range size varies geagapbically ar.d sesonally (Gipson and Scaiander 1972; Be.bK md Wells 1980; Laundre and Kellrr 198-l) and within a population (Sp~ge: 1977; Bdwen 1982: Gese rt d. 1988a) (Table 22.4). vkiation in home range - size Dong resident coyotes wlrhin a popuiation depenh on energetic requirements. season, sex, physiogaphic makeup, habitat, and food disebuuon (!!muore and Kdler 1984; Gese er d. 1988ai. Home range rize aiso is inj3uenccd by social organizafion. Tiuslent individuals Addts I h ) Juverulcs Orm) Sourcc Wes Femvles Males Fcmaleb Both Scxcs Rooinson and Cummlngs 1951 Young 1951 Young!951 Robinson md Gmd 1958 bwthome 1971 Glpson and Sdander 1972 Nehs ma i(slrh 1976.hdrews md Baggess 1978 Bowen 1982 Grse 2: a hson :99? '?vide pgs. 'Fernaic pups. 'Exciudes &ra 51 one!c.mle hat moved a record dismce of ion

7 T-LE 22 A Mean coyore home range sizes from some representanve mdes Aouiti ilrm'j Juverules and Pups ihm:) Mdes Females Maics Females Stare/Prowct Glpson and Scaiander 1972 Chesness and Bremickc: 1974.*sas.MmOmora Mlnnesora Utah Okiahoma Aibem Man- Texas Gese zr d Windberg and Knowitan 1988,Atbnsan and Shackleton 1991 Person and Hxth 1991 Texas Bribsh Columbia Vernon: "Summer bwinter 'Brndks. dgenanon. 'Pup rearing. '~$s~ersai. SFaU. h SP~O~. range over large areas, whereas residents occupy distinct temrocies (Bowen 1982; Bekoffand Wells 1986: Gese a al. 1988a). Covotes iiving in packs who defmdunylatc c-on durvig the w&er hive much smaller, compressed home ranges than coyotes living in paus or alone (Bekoff and Wells 1980). Coyotes actively defend well-dehed territonai boundaries using direct confrontation and lndirecr means involving scent rnarhg and howhg (Camenzhd 1978; Bekoff and Wells 1980, 1986; mils andbekoff 1981; Gese and Ruff 1997, 1998; Gese 2001). T~ically, only pack members maintain and defend temrories; solimy indinduals do not (Bekoff and Weh 1980; Gese ;ma Ruff 1997,1998; Gese 2001). Fidelity to the home range area is very'high mong resident an~mais, may persist for many yeas (Kitchen e: ai. 2000b), and may be passed to successive generations. S~ in temroriai boundaries may occur in response to loss of one or both ofthe alpha pair (Camemind 1978; Gae 1998). (1 I%), rodents (9%), songbirds (S%), cattle (7%), labbits (7%), deer (5%), woodchucks (4%), goats (4%); and watermelon (4%). Korschgen (1973), in an analysis of coyote feeding habirs in Missouri, also found seasonal differences. For example, rabbits were found in 57% of coyote stomach in winterversus 14.8% in spring. Canion was foundin 15.6% of stomachs in winter versus 37.04'0 in spring. Livestock and wild ungulates often may be found in coyote stomachs and sscars as camon (Muie 1935, 1951; Ozoga andharger 1966; Korschgen 1973; Weavx Coyotes are opportunistic3 generaiist predators and ezt a variety of food item in relabon to chanses in availabiiity (Van Vwen and Thompson 1982; Todd and Ksirh 1983; bdeit e: al. 1987; Windberg and Mitchell 1990). Tney will consume food items rangng in size uon Ou11 and insects :a iar,or: ungulates and li-vesrock (Fig, 22.5). MacCracken and Hansen (1987) su:.,oested that coyotes may seizct prcy as?redicted by oprimai fbraging nodeis, but see Bcutin md CluE ii389) and MacCmcken :' '89) for review and comme3b. Gipson (1971:oud rei.ior;ll md sezonai dieerenczs in fee5nin. habm oicoyores jiving in.khsas.'he most ;omon iood item from 168 coyore sromazhs were poui~ (34561, persmons (23"%), inseas F!cLw Coyore feeding on elk calf carcass, YeUowstone Natianal Park R-yormng. SOLICE: Phom by E. Gese.

8 :9--: 3kod I~.J \Ve!:s :Y8G), 'kt 3c:ui?reiz~!on an!qe,xp:i:itss. 50th jatxe ir.d tomesnc, ices oczx :Gie: lgh3: Ilisi! :%S-: icss s.6 Crorl?e ' 905). In '*-xiomnn, the 3erccXue- :i;svate src;-,~cbs ccn- 1978). C&on avruiabiliy dw.::g ~vmrcrpia~r a hge roie n coyote {oraeng md populai!on ecoicp :n norhcn rzxluns (Weaver :i):?: Todd 1'85; Gcse s:al. 19oh;i. 199hb). X;~roduiuc:ivs smtusn~y?v~s~ dueme.. :;.ore fez5ng habirs. C~ycr~s :hat ire provis;cning>r;;ls may ivxrcn :o Ix~er. more energecally '?ruduhic'?re? irems is :omcared :o son- :eproduc:~ve coyotes (Ti'd '(;owlton! 983; Hsrzscn ud Barison 13%; Sromiey 2000). Coycres in suburban 2-sa xe s~xdly adept ~t zxpioiring iuman-made food resotzcrs and w~i! ::2li$ consume dcg food?r other human-related Item (Cliargo :985. Atkmson and st.,.~,c.on.,.: 8 + :99!; h1cc:me dt ai. 1995). As a cave-r foor-'codhabir w.aiys;s; whenever 4C3I maiysis data re dsed io derelnule feeding habits, thc.nherenr orobiem of.. jrev digesnbilim - and cecovew uiood terns n:clation to zcmi prey consmfnon cm confound:cs;ii?i mi should b* considsrc? (tvexver md IiorEma i979: Kelly uld Ganon BEHAVIOR Direcr abseriation ofcovote behavior :n dx,wid is Jiffiait because oi the slusive nature ofyhr species (Zsunan mu Bmdy 1975; Bskod ZOOla). Howeve:. observarlocs of ;ovores in national varks iave orovided insight into many aspecs of :he bei:aviord ecoloa oithe species (Carncmd ;978; Bekoii' and Wdls , 1986; Wells and Eekoff :981; Gcss et al.!9y6a, 19960, iyy6c; Gcse s1d Rufi : Ilcn et al. 1999). Dam on behav~orai deveiopmenr xe presented inbekod(ly72, 1974, i97%, 1978) ma BekodmdDugar!an (3000). Cavarrs show early deveiopmcnt of apsessive -- behawor cornoared to,,voi.ies dndmcst domeshc dogs; they w?ll zn-azr in sexuus 6ghrs when thsy ire only Jays old (Knigh; :974; Bekodcr ai. 198;; BekoE mddugah7000).theeady deveiopmenr~ii~rcia~ons~ps within litters aopcm.. co iatirp months lic~iehr - IYlSi, bur the dominance iurrvchy later m life may nor reflect the hienrchy obsrmd w i ~ thr. n inrr (Beko81977b; Knighr 1978). General behaviod panex (postures, gcsrures. ail novemmrs. facia! ~xprrssions, vocalkst~uns) uire described md discussed in K!s~man (ly66j, Fox (1970). St.kofl(iY72, 1974, 1978) Lx&t (1978). LcImrr (!37Ya, i5!7sb), and Weils and Brkofl(1981). Gait, srmce, ex and tail pasiuon. and rerracnon of 'be!ips to expose!he tecth are all ver; Importar in sacill iommunica-!,on and inay vary dependently or tc_rer!:cr, depending on hkv.dua! 'mood." Ccmparahve reviews are m :<emu. md Eisenberg (1973) -ind Kickan and Bnay (1955). Sodal Orgsnizatiuo. GcnrzCy, coyotes ire ionside::d less socral than wolves (bur see Gcse e: d. i?"f6a, l99hb). In Ycllowstone Nanonai Park hch prey biomass, :%zb survival r~tes. and lack ui 3e:secur:on packs. is the donxl;mt idult hcterose.~l pair. often reikrred :o as 'be "alpw pax (Bowen 1975; B<koffmd We% 1980, 1R86; Gese er xi. 1996,~)..\ssociate mimais w-iil remain in the?ack dnd possibly inhent or displace a member of he Sreeding pau and br-ome an d~ua theselves (Gcse cd. i?%aa). These msocates (or 3etxanunsisl paruclpare in :ctonal maintex~nc; md puo irmy (Harier 1995), bur out to rhr sxrenr of the alpha pau (Gese md RJE 11)97. ;99F: C.cse 3001). Other coyotes exist on :he landscape durside of *r rts~dent pncb ar.d are cnnsiderzd misnr or nomadic hci;.?dwds (Cme3zmd 1973; Bowe:: 1982: Gcse c d. 19SSa). Tlesi: in-~lents usmily me! ~ione over 3 large area. io ::or breed md di> not maintain a ;err:ori (BekaRand \Veils 1986; Grse and &IS l??7, 1908; Gcse 2301). Cayore pi.!- rescmbit woi<lacks!sowen IC-'3; EcSo%mtl.YCils :950: Gese -1 3i.!O?Gb,) md :r ippe%-i :hat Ji3tr-sczs ietwezn ;:qc;tcs 1-d,.~ciws =re?~atitnnvr nthe: ;ha quiirar~ve.,.!us; B.*v?h LI 'other S ~~CLS~??c:e :;ti~c!~, :hex,> com;de:- ~"le.iar,abiiiry.k observed sccrai oi:?vm~non (Li~wea 1YX; Bckod irl '.!:?:Is is$:, 1 C4h). 'a m w ires. soiirar:, :;diwduals sr: k:r;c-::!v cbic7e2,3::g md C'aesxss :?7S1 2utsiie 3ihe iesdine 1?&31. :n 3th;: ariq jr:i 1s Jachcn?.>is, Wyom:!,Canewad."- Y Y:E3esaffand'A~ci:s :?SO. 198:). md!asper,,%bem(bowez:9;8); zrcups ofcoyores a: :~moniy obse~ied.?-ey slze maybe mpom.r in i5c:lr.g :nyo:e iocidi~ -/Isowen!YS: SekoRmd We& 1980). in,-i:puiariocs -.\-here the Tqcr ire:, rtcms rhrou&our -be year are s-1 rodenrr, coycrssrs~d io he inpain orxos (3rkarimd We" i9y6: Grse e: 11. 1?8?aa). In?n"ularions vhere lxce amds are mailzbie (a.2.. ek,.. Leer; s:tns: s live mdiv:duals or as wroo. :oyores fom large gcups (Ijekoffrnd Wkas 19%: Gese er ~i. li9ba. 1995'0). However. coyore groiics.:; not nec:sssrjy fomed to capturz large prey (Gcsc s: 31. IUYSh!, :bough coyotcs oc;as~onaily nunt s 1 pair or s goup jf?h md Schwc~ner 1979; Bour/er 1957: Gcse md Grothe 1995). bsread iooperxlve goup defense xppcxs to be the mqor seiecsve force favor- :ng mc'easei soc:aii?/ (Brzer 192: Bowen 1978; Lamprec ; SVr:;s 1980). However, :yen with a resident pack, dominancs plays a!ai:e role in access to fezding on czrcxses (Gese et 31. l"601 and niiuencrs thc abiiiy oi associates 10 remaln in the pack (Gesc c: si. 1996a). Imponantly, coyotes rend to be more sacid during winrc:, when ;Jrnon is a "en; importmt food resow2 ibowen 1978; Cxr..e3zind 1979; Beioff and We!ls :980). In areas without larse ;in-.. gxlzr: csrr!un,!nce~sed pack slzz aiso occurs in :he brczhiing season, which then f~iiiiures caphlrc oilxge prey (Gese e: dl. i988b). Predatory Behavior. There have been 2 kw derailed studies of ;he r;:sdatoqi behivior of -mid coyores on snail mammals (W>ils and Bekoff 1482: 3ekcfTmd W4ls 1986; Gese e! al. l996b, 1996~). P;edatory sequcnccs may be divided into a1 lear SLX cornponenu: search. ocznwriou, snk pounce, head thvclose sesrch :nro ground cover, s d rush. Pounc:ng is used mostly for capturiniing small mic:ohnc TOdcnts, whereas rhc rush is used most kequemiy on!qcr animals, such as ground squ~rreis (Bzkoffand Weils iy86: Gcse et d. l996cj..age ot' the miual, wind, habirar. and snow :ondioons (depth and hdrdnessl ail idu..3c., L coyote's ability to rice.: mu capture smallmammals (Weils mdbzkod1981; hlilrrsy mdboutm 1991; Gese i.1 I. 1996~). Coyotes generally hunt m I I mammals xione, even thoubthc yack size may be quire ixge (Gese 2: , 1996~). Cooperative hunting for smll mnmm~is would bc mrscient beczuse only one individual cm con- ;me ;he prey ;tern (Bowen 1981; Andelt 1985; Gese :t d. 1988b). It h~s been shown expcnmenriiy that coyotes iirpcnd on various senses to ;ocarc prey. I11 order of decreasing hponance, they are vision, audition, and oifactlon ~Xells and Lebnrr!gig), though these "pcorines.' nay change depending on envlronmenal condinons (Wells 1978'1. Pecbtirory behavic: mdhabiw ofwiidcoyotespreging on domssnc livestock have received increased ~rtention je.g., Heme 1977; Shivlk ct~l. 1996; Windberg et b; Xrale ctal. 1998: Sacks er al. 1999). Cznnoily 21 JI. (l97sj found :hat capnve coyotes MIsd sheep (in confnemmt) aniy in 30 ot.38 tests (5?.6:1,); defensive behavior by she:p dite~cd coyotes only 31.6?/0 of the he. Miem latency to attack was -is?! long (47 mni, with consideraoiy vanabiiiy (swndard dewauon = 18 slir.) arnun_r amc.b. Mean kiilulq rime, likewise, was cithcr long (13 :nf), and cons~dcrrlbly vanable. In mosr ;nstances, coyotes attacked,., ny biting the thros~ and the rh~q died of sudocorion. Various fac:ors influence cayore depredanan mtes on sheep, including breed of sheep, shes? mma~emrmp&ces. coyote bebavlor, snvironmenwi fx:ors. and de?re&rion management progm. In xenerd, chan~es in dnixal ilze and behavior, differences h soup cohesiveness, soclaiity, grazmy kspersion, attmnveness. and mtcmi protection ail adefeci v~inerabiity to coyare predation (sez re~nzw by Knowiton st ai. i99y). R->.dbrrx 2: A. (1997b) and Bromiey (1000a) do~mentsd that coyotes ~rxniiy 'oiled rhe mdlesr dr!is!resr lnkviduals m the dock. C~oper,u.ie buntins ai adult unpiates ii.6.. deer. dk, mrelopel by coyores me!? nas bee3 5ocllm:nred (Cahalane i9l7; L1w.e 1951; Eras : 370: Zcwyer!987\. lv?ea ;oycies mi.!; large -aid ungulates. e.lvusrmsne!?ac:~rs sue= 3s ;now de-jrb and 3ardnrss oi the zrust iri~orm: :l! the IIIC~~SS iir :xure :f're mex?t igrs; ma Grothe,995 j.?:eseacr ar' he ipha?ax also appears to be impom1 in 'be

9 outcome oithe attack. Generally, younger anlmds do not pmicipzrs in the atiack sequent:. It appem that the mbe: oi cayores m the pack is not as imponant as which coyotes are involved m the araci. Even 2 a pack ofsevec coyotes. ady the alpha pair was hvoived in attacks on 1aree;inpuiates - - IGese andgrothe 1995'1. Also. the abuiwoi~uneulares to escape into ware: deienslve abiiities of individuals and other members of the herd or the Daren!. and numnonal scare of the individual unde: attack wiu conmbute to the outcome (Ozaga and Harger 1966; Bowye: 198:: Gese and Grorhe 1995). Communicatian. Coyotes comumcate using auditorj, visual. olfactory. and tactile cues Cehne: 1978% 1978b). Communication by howling or vocahzation is very common among coyotes (Gier 1975; Lehner 1978a. 1978b). Studies of wild coyotes have identitied many differcnr tges of vocaii7ahons (McCariey 1975: Lehner 1978% 1978b). Seasonal and die1 panems (Launcb5 1981: Walsn and Inglis 1989), lunar phase (Bender et d. 1996). and social status in the pack (Gese and R d 1998) dso influence coyote vocalization rates. Howling amang coyotes plays a role in terntonal maintenance and pack spacing. It si-4~ temtonal boundaries and the presence of alpha animals, who will confront intruders and defend the temtory (Gese and Ruff 1998). Studies on oltxctorv communication he.. scent markine) -, amone coyotes also have been conducted (Barrene and Messier 1980; Bowen andcowan 1980: Wells andbekoff 1981: Bekoff and Wells 1986: Gese and Ruff 1997; Allen st al. 1999). ~l~hacoyotes perform the majority of scent-maridng duties. Rates of scat marking vary seasonally, pack size does not lnriuence scent-marking rates, and scent marks are located more than exoected along the nenpherv of the tenitow and likelv con blbute to tenitory majnrenance (Bowen and Cawan 1980; Bekoff and Wells 1986; Gese and Ruff 1997). Scent marking may be a mechamsm for sex (BekofF 1979a) and serve as an indicator of sexual condihon, matmiry, or synchrony (Bekoff and Diamond 1976). Internal information to orient members of the resident pack (Wells and Bekoff and alert dispersing animals of occu~ied terntones also mav be communicated via scent marks. MORTALITY ~Mortality Rates. Different-aged coyotes have difierent mortalityrares. Mortality rates depend on the level of control to which a population 1s exposed and levels of food availability (Knowlton 1972; Todd er d. 1981: rodd acdkeith 1983; Todd 1985; Gese et d. 1989a: Knowiton et d. 1999). Pups (cl year old) and yearlings (individuals 1-2 years old) tend to have the highest mortality rates (Nsllis and Keith 1976; Gese et al. 1989a). For individuals > 1 year 014 mortality rates vary geographically (Knowiton 197?; Nellis and Kzith 1976 Bowen 1978; Andrews and Boggess 1978; Gese et bi. 1989a). Mathwig (1973) found grcatest life expectancy for coyotes in Iowa at 1.5 years of age and lowest iife expec-ancy at 5.5 years. Knowlton (1972), CrabUee i1988), and Gcse er d. (1989a) reportedrelawely high sumival in 4- m 8-yearold coyotes. About 70-75% of coyote populations are 1 4 years old (see Knowlton et al. [1999! for a summary of population srudies). To maintain popdation stability, net survival of about 33-38?6 seems to be necessary (Xnowlton 1972; Nehs and Ke~tb 1976). Causes of Mortality. Most shidies indicate that human acttvity is in-.....~.~~::n~.l~g~.~r~~c~r~c~~~~~~me.lc~~~,~i~~ul~ tospirosis on coyotes is udnowo, but infected d may survive and :::vo!es >dv!sd~ 1981, I:.;: 8, ' r 2: I 1, s! i. :3h9a, Mmdbun: remain caniers for a short time. 1993, although preiationhy large cmivores (Peterson 1995; Aqo Coyotes aiso cany a Mne? of parasites. Ectoparasites com- 1998: Crabtree and Sheldon!999) and stamanon dunne crashes of monly found amang coyotes include fleas (the most common external food resources also may be substantial modty factors. b~sease also parasite), various ricks, mites, and lice: see Gier and Ameei (1959) can be a factor. especially among young or the year; pmovirus ialled and Girr et d. (1978) ibr species identiiication. Intemai parasites inseveral radio-marked pups in ~~eilowsrone igese et al Even in clude several s~ecies oi flukes (Wematodes). tapeworms (cestodes), 5&tly explo~ted populations. mosr mortality is armburable to human intestinal worms (nematndes. ascarids), hookworms (ancylostomlds), causes. Human exploiration can be substanr.d in some coyote popuia- heartworms lfi!aroidsi. eso~haeeal worms (spinxoidsi, lungwarms nom (&owiton :9?;; &owlton et ai Diseases and Parasites. Ssrologicd analyses for anrioodies in coyotes have shown -bt they have been eerposed to =any diseases. in \iellowstone Nanonal Pxk. prevalence of antibodies against came jmovins (CP? was for sdults, yearlings. an6 old pups (a-12 months oid), but 0% for young pups (<3 morths old) (Ges; et a!.!997 [n = 1101). In Texas. Utah, Idaho, and Colorado, >70Yb oi the coyotes bad antibodes against C?V momas et al [n = 11841; Gese :t d [n = 721). In Georgia, 65% of i7 coyotes had antibodies against CPV (Hoim er ai ). High prevalencz of annbodies is often associated with a hi& contaeous, but nonfau! infecnon because prevalence is measured among survivors (Thomas et al. 1984). However, of 21 coyote pups implanted with radios in 1992 in Yellowsrone, 8 of I4 deaths were from CPV lnfecrion(gesee1 al. 1997). Presence of anti'~0dies against canine disremper virus was 88%, 54%'. 23%. and 096 prevalence among adults, yearlings, old pups, and young pups, respect~ei?.. in Yeliowstone National Park (Gese e: al. 1997). in Texasl Trainer and Knowlton (1968) found 37% of 33 coyotes bad antibodies to the vim; Guo e: al. (1986) reported 56% of 228. W~lliams et ai. (1988) reported that 5096 of 10 coyotes in Wyomng tesred posirive for this wus. In Geor~a, no coyotes were found to have been exposed (Holrman eta!. 1992b). he~lsnce ofcake inkcnous hepatitis virus antibodies was 97%, 82%, 54%. and 3354 for adults, yearlings; old pups, and young pups. iespecnvely. inyeuowstone Xationai Park (Grse dai. 1997). Covotes in Texas and Georpla had a lower prevalence ( %) of virus exposure itrainer and Knowiton 1968: Holrman et al. 1992b1. The depree - to whch this virus affects coyote populations is unknown. hi YeUowstone Yauonal Park. the re valence of antibodies against the pi;:&ue bacterium Yersiniapestis was 86%. 33%, 80%. and 7% for aduits., veariines. old nuns. and voune ouns. respectivelv (Gese et d. > *..,......, 1997) Ths!ugh prevalence was similar to results in other western states (Barnes I982 in = , In conuast.. coyotes. in California had very low antibody prevalence (<6% of 338 coyotes sampled) (Thomas and Huehes , Covotes, mav become infected with Y Destis bv be;lng biaen by fleas or possibly by ingesting infected rodents (Tr.omas et a1 1989). Infected coyotes usually do not develop clinical signs, but develop antibody titers that last about &8 months, malang coyotes an indicator soecies for ~laeue (Bames 1982). Changes in prevalence of plague h the coyote population likely reflect prevalence of piague in the smal-mammal Drev base... low levels (45%) (~ese zt al. 1997). In Texas, Trainer and &ely Knowlton (1968) found no serological evidence of tularemia. In contrasr. 88% of the coyotes in Idaho were seropositive (Gier et al. 1978). Coyotes may conwct tularemia but are relanvely unsusceptible and will likely recover (Gier and Ameel 1959). No coyotes in Yellowstone had serologcal evidence of exposure io brucellosis, either Brucelln nbonirr or B. cnnis (Gese et al. 1997). Similarly, coyotes m Texas and Georgia had not been exposed to bruceilosis (Trainer and Knowlton 1968, Hohan et al. 1992b). Coyotes do not appear to act as cant hosts for brucellosis. Prevalence of antibodies against leptosplrosis in the coyote population in Yeliowstooe was low (Gese et al. 1997). sinular to results for coyotes m Texas (Trainer and &owiton 1968) Ad Georgia (HolPnan et d. 1992b). In contrast four of nine coyotes tested in Arizona were seropositive for lepiospirosis (Drewek et d. 1981). The,&pact of lep-... and.4nce!' 1959; Hirsch and Gier 1974: kficchei and Beasom 1974; Thomron et ai. 1974: Conder and Loveless 1978; Gier er al. 1978; - -

10 qlzrcrr ci S. :9SS. wixson: ;: g.!':91: 2oi;n;m c: 2.!0035 I. C~yoies 3;,,, nay mp~sb!es ma ma:d ~silifer iom crrrdiovascuix- &sexes. 30:- Ju mesrjsiis it>cmtcn ;r a. I?YJ:. mange (Pe3c-n :!?El:?PX= 'yvx~ibe:g I?OJ'.. mu cancx F.:r ie\'?ews ma :cxcncmic mdyses di s x t ~ acc ~ l memii. paaslies. see 3ekod(;97;a) and (Gier 2: ;I. 19:s). C,~:cre Jge can be tstinat;:! by cornring dmtal cemennun annuli!l;nhm ma ::=owiton 1967; Y4iis 2: al. 19'8) and coarseiy esn- ~13~26 wlrh tcorh weir (Gier!968). Before tooth sec:ionmg for cc- ;ncntli. anaiysis; 3qc class ijui-exlzs mu adults) can bc &srrn-gushed basrd on the r:!ar,ve zuip C3Vlv size usinq miiopaphy!,lknowiton and Tvhrrcrnare 2001). Roberts (1978) palnred out thar -here is variation a age de:;manon from uifferenr teem and suggesred wing canines in age ds:emuation. Eye lens weight, baniurn we:&, and herroai cnnnaction of long!endons can also be used to eshmate aee - accuntcly. Ages siyouns cuyorzs can be istimazed h m bo+ mass, body :ennrb. mu!enmh ofthr hind fool igier 1968: Bckoff and lameson. 19-5: Bmm ;r ). The reqession equation for the body mass of hanc-rraed pups (O-30 days of age) is y = ~; for coyores days of dge, the equtlon is y = ~ (Barn- 61 al. 1979). From hand-raised coyotes, rhe resiession e p- aons for predicrmg the we:sht of!mow-ase coyotes are y = s (0-30 days) and y = ( days). Toe cond;it~ous bertieen wclzht and age for!&3o days md 3 ;-15.i days xc md respectively (Bamum et ). ECONOlVEC ST.~LTUS AYi) hi.lu.\gemx.w Coyotes arz,ncrlms of success. By takn~ ldvanrage of poorly devised dorncst~car,un orscrlces that lefi.most livestock virtualiv defenseless a~ninst ;r:~.on, coyores have esmblisbcd a reputation for eaic;ent and r12cnve zrcdation. Sheen havcbeenseicaivelv bredto~ioduc:anuluna!s that are siilted to pacticulm ';usbandy pracric~s, regons, conditions, md cuihr~l tates as well as to piov:de food and fiber (Knowiton st il. 1999) DiiTerenc.5 in group cohes~vcncss. sociality, gaxng disperslun, loc3tion; nnenrivcncss, mobiiiv, behavior, and maternal protecuon all 2Ec:cct thcx vulnerability to prcdatlon (Giuesmg et dl. i980; Blakesiey and McGrcw 198.1; Knowlton 21 ai. l999l. hi~or;antly. nor ~ll coyores :GI! sheep. Some are never exposed to shecp (Wagner 198Y), whereas others do not develop sheep-hilin~ rendenc:es jlr.s. Fish md Wildlife Sem~cr 1978; T b and Connaily IYXU). Shiv,& 6r 21. (1996), Canner er a!. (IYYX), :ad Sac:- ct 31. (1999) described radio-coilartd coyotes nesr sheep \nth k\r-!mbs brmg killel;; losses were usually ircr,butrd ;o thc brerding, tentodal cayores. In conrrasr, Connolly (1'188) md Windbcrg r: d. (1997b) E- oorrsd a hi=! numnbcr oicovorss thm killcd and consumed!ivcsrock. In the internountab West. Till and buw.ton i 1985) md Bromiey (20001 dzmonsuatrd ttut aduit coyales wirh pups were more lkeiy to hil iambs thanadults \i;thourpups. In dunnzsr. renironal ioyotes innoa-coaswl CdiLiibmia laii Imbs as soon= hrv nbccamc~vailabie :ndecember and January, oursldz the pup-rcd~g srson (Connrr 1995; Sic!ti 1996). Economics of Coyote Predation. Tne mount of :ivestock!osses that produce3 imibure :o coyotes is J sonrenrious issue. Wildlife protrcnonsdvocztes :iaim~ht ie.u or nu depredarions actuaily acc.~, where= ;rroduce~s kdicare!asses From cayates threaren their economc livclihood!caine m dl. 1973: Ge- et '; CS. Fish md Wildlife SzMce i?7s: Wagner 1988; Knowiton er ai. i094). In iiruanons where here was prehror :onnoi. losses of sneep ro cayotes were :.il'.o~o far Imbs =,ld 0.1&2.0?/0 for ewes (US. Fish and Wiidlife Semic: h %>ward 19-6; 3rawiz:i I?--: Heunr 197 :vllmoz 1977: Llc.idoo and :ie!:e~o\v 19-8; O'i7~r e: ii. :!JP>. In :?%. :he zcanomic value ui domes::^ sheep 10s; ro pre&ron was reporrsd is $17.7.milion Fey-z-r jf >.rri.-!rure 19q5i. ie=irr m6 S:;m&e (:978) md L~.S De3m:s::: ois=$;?liture i:?95! rnanzd -hr c3yotes wc~e rsspc, n>,o:c $1 he ;lajcr;.i :i 111 she:? lost :o preron. iiowe.ie:, ;r is hpocjr.: :o corsiccr :hat coyctz prehnon is ilot 'ie najor c3ue oi :css;s Cis. Fish ma 'Xildiiie Serilce!9-8: Bekaii 1979b). Eariy s7 1:. ( 197.1) found thzr -7% ai the rotai cc3nonic ;lass oi iherp k :3-%1?7l was Lue :a Asease (43?'0), w.spec:fisi zauses 131?6j. md pre&rcrr C3"/oi. Depredation \.lsnszement Protecting 1ives:cck or wlidife species iom :oyores :ccn;;s ;ons~de:anon ut';qal. soc:d, sconomic. biolosicd. :;c:m~wi. 5:bcal fac:ors (Stener an3 Shumke i97s; Wade 13-5; Bekoff Olb; fficwlton et ai. I'J991. Succrssliii resoiut:on ofcodic:~ should cansider rhe efficac:~. seiecuvlty, and ejicirncy ot' vanous proc:dures. S;.re.al te-.ki~es xe avaiiabie?or reducmg czyore depredano~s on!ives:ac!c (Siemer md Shumake 1978; Wade 1978: FA 1590; LS. Cesamncnr oi.4gnc.dlure 199.r). Limy tecnniqw's are within rhe upcranonal pur,,ie.w of the producers, such is nunie:hal tcchnlqces. ijthers invoivs lethal co~noi in either a preventative or ccrrecnve context. Procedues ;Oat are more bsmp in ebects on narurai sysrrmj ire rypiczlly prrftrrd. Fd ),.4,udeit (1996). and K;icwiicn 2: al. (1999) :ev~e..vca mmy of the rechiques for reducine coyore depredacons. Y\ronremu\ai Techniques. Szved rec!mio,ucs have been used to detsr coyores %om attachnq livesrock (Linhan 1984a: Wagner 1988; Fall 1990; Green et il. 199.'). Wberex same methods have beensilccrssful, others are complete i3ililres. Knowlton a 21. (19%)) suggesied several husbmdry pncrlces tksi may reducr depredations, including combing or concennstki. - Bocks dunnv -. uefiods of vuhcrabdilv, usme - herders. shed :mbmg, removxiig lives:ock careon from games, synckom~g binhmg, and kcepmg young mais in areas with little cover andlor ncrrrrsr to hum=: icnviv (Iiobr! r: ai.!?91: Wagner Scvemi kncs.. sf 3rorcsrive fcnc:nq c:n exciude 31 reduce coyoi- use ofu~ are.>!or idesta and Cropsey 1978; Llnnart 21 al. 1982: Sheiton IYZ4, 1987; Vass 3ndThe;ldc I 9RS), but few are"coyorcproof." Fnghtcning dcvic;s!hat:nit blvsrs oflight oarsoundhave de:ened coyote Drehtion on sher~ in fenced pasrures (Llnnart er al. 1982, 1984; Linhart 198lbj and on open range ili&.art e: ai. 1992); howe-ier, covatrs often become habimared to such devices (Knowiton et a ). Use of,pard lolmais may reducz damage by coyotes. Dogs, Uamas, and donk;:,s ormulcs xe used 35!ivesrock guards jlinhm. e-l d. 1979: Coppinge: et xi. 1983; Grrrn and Woodruff 1983, 1987; Black and Grecn i984; Green ;:.II. 1984; Tjnm and Sc.htnidt 1989; Powell i993, Conner 1995). There arc no re3eue3rs md!emed aversions rhatwill deter coyare predation. A vanety ui'~:;tatory olfactory, andmrafmgproaucta ;have been tesred. Food -onsummon mav be reduczd (Hoover 19961, bur predarion is nor (Lehner 137; Bums and Lhson 1997). investigations of condinonedmste,lverslan usmg iihiwn ~uocde showednuxedresults. Some xscarcherr reported success arrcducmg food consumpnon (e.g., Gustavson st xi ; Ellins md 41m 198:; Fonhmm-Quick e: 31.!985a, 1985b), whereas orhers repaired no ieduction oi'predation bv. couores. ibekoe:97i; C-nover 5 ai Bum 1980;!983; Bums and Connolly 1980, 1985; Bourne ma Dorrmcz 1982). Sttemats to reduc; covote reproducnve rdres and popuiabon lev- eis ]lave been :nvesr;gateu with rhe assum~con that iewer Gayotes will rzsuit in fewer i;e3re&iions {Knowiton sr d. 1999). Copre repraducnon,was reducea'sing diethyistiibesreroi [Baiser 106i; Laban cr ai. 1908:. bur was :~mcmcncd withour effcc:ive bair ieiive? svstems..qternar.veiy, reoroaucrlve inrede:ence usmg jret51iz3tion 3f temto- nxi. breedin?: - ca\otesrn;lv. bem,-~edlv;~~av:o reduce de~rehtions by coyarcs ~Brodcy 2000) by ib&g ;he pre.&rov bciavtor of adults when nro\.is;orim!g young (Tii1 md ~kowiton 1983). With respect ro chernosrerianrs. Sotin rcqianon ifedcrai wd S~IS i 2nd disnburion xc prohemrn:c, SteiXug 2: ). Cz,yote Remuvd Techniques. X%7sen ncnrzmcwi :ccimli;ues do -or stop deprehcioos, rmoving one or more soyores may acheve

11 - mananernenr obiec5es mowiton e: ai. 1999). es~cciaiiv ii the removed anlnais are the "problem individuals" (Linnd 5: a1 1999). Removlnn one orwo :n&vudi;als m a amall area ii.e., corrective ccmol> may stop the problem. whereas mother cases,?opuiationreaucnan may be warranted Knowlron et al. (1999) suggesteathat selection of the appropnate method shouid corsiderthe name oi&e probiem presence of a hsroricai parreni. sue of the area season oithe year, tuning, efficacy se!ecn~ry, -5c:eacy: anaatumal weifare considerations (Bexoff 1998, 200ib). On small areas where specific coyotes pose the most &mediate rik cahg and shoo~g can selectively remove coyotes killing livesrock (Coolahan bur requues conectiv identifvine. - rhe areas used by the hllers. One method thar mav be the most selecnve for remome - coyotes. responsible for depredations is the use of the livesrock protection collar fmcbnde 1974, 1982; Burns et al. 1988, 1996; Connoilv and Burns 1990; Connolly 1993; Rollins 1995). These devices reiease a toxic chemicd into a coyote's mouth when the coyote attacks and punctnres the collar on a sheep's neck. They are registered by the Envlromenral Protection Agency in seven states and require approved Wining and accountability programs (Moore 1985: Knowlton e: al. 1099). Coyotes causing depredations also canbe removed withuaps, snares, andm44 devices. but tbe selectivity for Che offending coyote(s) is lower (Brand et ai Most depredanons are attributed to terntonal, dominant coyotes (Till andknowlton 1983; Sack 1996). Withthese tcmitorizs, coyotes are less winetable to capture devices because of thelr farmliarity of the area (Hams 1983; Windberg and Knowlton 1990: Windberg 19963, which makes removal of offending lndividuds dficult (Comer et at. 1998: Sacks et al. ip99). Aerial hunting in winter is efficient and effect~ve (Wagner and Conover 1999). However. concerns regarding the safeq of pilorr and gunners, seiect~vity of anunals, aod economtcs put see W-agner and Conover 1999) are a matte: ofpublic debate (e.g., Finkel 1999). Coyote Population Reduction. There may be sitwations in which a reduction in the number of coyotes requires serious consideration, including instances where coyotes pose a risk to other wildlife species, the spread of infectious diseases needs to be curtaiied or predation on iivestock needs to be re vented when more benim tecbniaues have been ineffective (~nowlton et ai. 1999). population reduction programs are mast effective when conducted &er the dominance and territoriai patterns are estabiished far the coming breeding period and before whelping, to prevent other breeding pairs from becommg established and producing offspring that season (Know-lton 1972: Connolly 1978; Knowlton et ai. 1999). As noted previously, before any popuiation reduction measures are impiementeii the technical, legai. social, biological, economic, and ethical considerations as weil as the e5ciency, effectiveness, and selechvity of the rechnique shouid be considered. LITERATLRE CITED Adojan, A. S.; and G. B. Kolenosb manual far the idenniicauon of hak of selected Onmio mammais ( Resd Report 90). Ontano Department oihds and Faicbu. Allen I., IM. Bekoff. and R Crabme n observanond siudy of coyote (Canls lonow) scent-marbg and tmtonality in Yellowstone Nauonal Pad Ethology 105: Andeit, W Behavtoml ccology of coyotes in south Tem. Wildlife Monogrsphs Andeit. W. F Cwote~r&nan. Paces in.m No& J. 4. Baker. Onmo Trappers.issaciatian Andelt W F Cmvores. Pycs in P R Krausman. rd &geland ulidlifc. Society far Ranse Management. Denver CO. Andelt W. F.. D. P. UthoE. and P. S. Ginson Mavernmtr of breedme co?oirs with emphals on den sire &iaoonsbpa. Journal of Mamma~oG 60: h&k W 5. I. G..Gc. E F. :ecwlto% md K Cxdwei! Varmon lo cavore &e:s asauiarsdw;b icaon and ruccessionji changes m veaemnon. Journal aiwiidliie Manageaent 51:273-7:..h&wvs. R. D.. ma E. K. Bosgess Ecaiogy ai coyotes m Iowa. rases in M. aekorf ed. Coyotes: Biology, behmar and managemcnr. Academc Press. NCW York..Qo, W. >l ?'he effecr: of recoio-g wolves oc coyote popuiaoons. movcmenrr, behaviors. and food habm Dissemnon. Umven~ry of.uontana Missoula. hrjo. W M.. and D. H. Plcsche: Behavioral resconses ofcoyores to wolf iecaiomanon in northwesrern Mangna. Canadian J o d of Zoology ;i:i91'%27. Asdell S. A Panems of mammaiian reproduction. Cornell Gniveriity hss. irhaca, NY Aths. D. L. I978 Evolution andmorphology oftbe coyore h. Pages m 1. Bekoii, ed. Coyotes: Biology, behamor andmmqement Acadermc PKss, New York Atians. D. L., and L. S. Dillon Evoiunoo of the cerebellum m the gmus Cans. Journal ofmammaiogy 52:9&107. Ahson, K. 7, and D M. Shackleton Coyote. Conrr iornnr. ccoiogy in a rural-urban enwironmmt. Canadian Fieid-Nadist 105:4>54. Babb: J. G., and,m. L. Kemcdy An estlmate of *urn density for capres in western Temessce. Journal of Wfldlife Mqemmt 53:18& 88. Balser, D. S Management ofpredatarpapuiatiom withaatifeidiity apenrs. 30-d of Wildlife Mywent Barnes. A. M Swelllance and conmi of bubomc plague in the Umred Swtes. Symposia ofthe Zoological Society (London) 50:Ui-70. Bamq D. A.. J S. ken, i T Flindcis, and N. L. Gates Numoonal levels and growth rater afhand-reared coyote pups. Journal ofmanmalogy Barrene. C., andf. Messier Scent-marking in hee-ran*g coyotes, Canis lorans. Animal Behaviour 28:81&19. Bekoff, M An ethological study of the development of social interaction in rhe genus Conis:.-I dyadic analysis. Dissenation, Washington Uluversity, St. Lollis, MO. Bekoff. M Soc~al play and play-aolicihg by infant canids. Amencan Zoologist 14: Bekoff. M Predation and avenive conditioning in coyotes. Science 187:!096. Bekoff, M. 1977% Conis inrans. Mammalian Species Bekoff, M. 1977b. Mammalian dispersd and ontogeny of individual behavioral phmowes. American Namdist 111:71S32. Bekoff. M Behavlad development in coyotes and eastern coyotes. Pages 97-!26 in M. Bekoff, ed. Coyotes: Biology, behavior and management Academic Rcss, New Yark. BekoE, M. 1979a. Ground scratchz by male domesic dogs: A composite rimal. u Jaumzl of Mammaioev 60: Bekoff. M. 1979b. Coyote damage assessment i the west: Rtview of a repon. atoseience 29:754. Bekaff, M Encyclopediaof animal rights anddwclfare. Greenwood Wesrport, CT. Bekoff, M. 2001a. Cunningcoyores: Tiless tnchrers, protean predaton. Pages in L. Dugat!&. ed. Model systems in behaviami ecology P+ace- ton Umversiq ks, Pnncetoq NI. Bekoff. M. 2001b. Humartcarmvore interactions: AdopMgpraactk srraregies for complex problems. Pages in 1. L. Gittieman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald and R R Wayne, eds. Cmvore consemon. Cambridge Urllvenity Press, London Bekoff, M., and 1. Diamond I976 Piecopulatory and copulatory behavlor m cnvotes. Jam1 of Mammalow 57: ~ekoff,.~.. and L. A. Dugatkin Wimm and laser effecrs and the development of dormnaoce in young coyotes: An inreganan of daia and theory Evolunanary Ecology Research Bekoff, M., and R. Jmieson Physical development in coyotes (Cnnrs i n m ) witha cornpanson to other canids. Journal ofmamdogy 56:685 0" Bekoff. M.. and.u. C. Wells Sacid ecology and behavior of coyotcs. Sc:ennfic Ammcan 242:13C48. Bekoff, M,%~M. C. wells. 198l.~ehavlauralbu&edngbywjld coyotes: The ia&xncs of food nsames and social a~mizxtian. himal Behaviour 29:79&801. Bekoff, M., and M. C Socral ecology and bchavlor of coyotes. Advances m the Studr of Benavioi 16: Bckoff. M.. H. L. W. and J. B. ~Minon Behavlorai manomy in mds by discruninant iuncaon analysis. Science!90:!22>25. BekoE. M.. bi. TyrreU M, V E Lipen. an6 R A. Jmieson Fighting patterns ix young coyora: hitiaaan, escalanon, and assesmem. Agggcss~ve Behior i:z2.w.

12 3e2ae~ 3 I.. T. >I. %I-e. lcdi 41. Zcghm. 3% 2-ccnjiiion &~:ezces ;jyarc (Im!r:nrrnrui.ii;w!ing. imcnc3nltidlanlls~~iis; i-,., 3: W 5.. ma h A. C.csress. :Pi4 izoiug.>i ;a)orss n nor3ez iinr.inr.sam.?=ees 1:0--17 :n M. Bcrof. $3. Cayxes: Bioioe. beenwar md nr-agemmi..4wilcrmc Eess. Yew Ybrk. 3crge:. J. :O-3. '?raaior imssmmr' LS I liefensive smtsg..aenwn Mid-!and Ydlsr :Oi:!9'-39 3:nir H. I.. ma Green Na>,a!a ise i;nu;c'-bred doqs for man- :qcmem aipreurarj. Joumai oiilaog? Li-qemcnt j8:i 115. ~biaizy, i. 5. ma I. C..LlcGrew Dt2s:ennni uinsracciq ~i1amor :a cayore?i;&non. ippiicd ha! Benancr Sc:mcc 1::34%5;. aaggsss. E. K.. ad%.x Henderrm. ;?X. Rcgonni rve;i.hts uibas coyares. Trriacaoos af!he hsas Academy oi Science 8O:?LdO. Bourne. i. mdll J Dorimcr.!982..A field resr oilitlxun ;Sonde avcrslon ro rccuc- ;wote?reunon Jn domesiic me=. Journal oiwildllic Imagernes Bourn. 5.. ind B. D. Cluff Coyote prey cholct: Optimal or oppomisuc for~gmq'?.a commmr journal ofw-iidliie Management 53:dbZ-66. Bowen. W 3. :?i8. ioc:i oqmizanan ofthe coyore in relmon :o prey size. 3isssnaoon. Umversiy aibnash Colllir..oia, Vancouver, Cmaw. 5uwcn. W Vaistian in iayors snc:al aqznizanun: The :duenc: oi?re:, sue. Canadian :owai oiz~o1og-j Yo\ven. W. D fiorne :mpe and sprnlnl orgm::woon oicoyates m Jasprr Nuiiinunal Pui. 41bcr;i. joumdi of.wtidlte Managemnr 16:10i-15. Boucn. W D, and I. M. Cow, Sczzt nanung h coyores Calnadtan Joumai oizoolog 58:173-SO. Royer R. T.!9X7 Cyarc group size ieiative io predanon on trrule deer Ismmaiia 5!:j Yoyd D.md B. W. O'Gara Caugar?iedai:on oncilyatrs. LLumcIer 66:!7. Biand D. J. N.?w~il, and W kt. Scorf mriuencc oi:c;&;irrcmovni ofblack-backedjachls on the.;ficicnuy of Goyore gcuers. South Akcm Jomai oiwi1dlife Research LS:W8. 3mw!ey, K. C. 19":. Damedc siirep rnoniny dufmg nd after :eso oisevrrui predaioi control methods. Thesis. 1,:niverjly oiblonma LLissaula. Brom1e:j C. '000. Cuyotr stcnliurion 2s 1 mcms,of rea.a;mq predsnon an domesr!c!ambs. Txsis. i;tm itlrc ;wveniry, L;gan. Bnms. 5. H Winter prc;lat:on,of yalaen cqirs 2nd coyores onpron+horn u;reic:pes. Canadian iicld-narunlisr 34:;0!2. Bums. R. ; Evaiuaaan oicondinoncd ~rcbanon aversion for controlling coyote predation. Joud of Wildliic Llanagcment C1.93W2~ Sums. R, J Llic:ocncapwiarcd lith~m ahiundc hut avivers>on did not stop coyote predanon on sheep. Journal of Wiidiifc 4lminagement 17:101&17. 3urns. R. J., md G T. Cornoily Lithum cnonds baa averiion dd nor injuexce prcy lulling by coyotes. Procecdingr of the Vmebmte?:st C.,nferenc:: 9-:0&204. Buns. R. J.. md G. E. Comolly A iommenr on "Coyare conwal and tvtc aversion." Apprnre 6.27&81. Bums, I<. J.. md J. R Mason Effecnvcncss aivlchas nan-ierhal callas In dcr*.mnp ioyorr attacks an sheep.?:oc;rdings oi ;hi. '+nebme Tesr Canimmcr 17:20t6. Sms. R. I., G. E. Conn<,ily, md P. L Savare Larg iivesrack prarrc- :Ion coilas criecrivr qmst coyores. Oroc:zain;ls of the 'genebnre Pesr Canrkrence 13: Burns, X. J. D. E. Z:mlicka. md P. I. Savxie Eiiecuvmess of!we livenaca 3rzrecnon ~ oum asmsr - droredanne - sovotcs.. Wiidlite Soc:cri Builetm 34:!?3-27. C~twJae, Y ii A dcrrioyare episode. Joumai oimmmdogzy:3&39. C~mr. S..A, J..4. Xxdlec. D. L. Allen, R.4. C~uley. M. C, iiomocker, A. 5. Lzspoid md F. H. Wagner 1972.?redator conrrai repon ro the C~uncil an Enviranmcnmi Qiuiicy and the Dep-rnt oithe inrenor by rse ;iliv~rocy Commi~ec on Predaror Canuoi. Colmcii on Envkonmerrul Quaiiqr md L-.S. Dcpamcar dthr hrmor. Washmgon. DC. C:m;.limd C Behamod ccolog oicoyotcs anthe NananalElkReNgr, Jxhon. Wyoming. Paces in Lf. Bckod &. Cdyores: blolagy, Behav:ar ind management. hcademc Pxss. Yew %&. Cxby~ I. N.. adp C. Paque: Lanq dismc: movemrmaia coyare kom.zdmg Lioumin Nanonai?azk Jom.d oi'nildiie Managencnt 50:39. Chsnens. R, A. mdt.? Yrmcrccr 1?7.l:<uacrmge. trrnrorali~~,n,dsosacu- 'jiiiry di ioyol\/ores in nonil-scami Liimcsou. Cfiyore Rcsexci Workshop. Demer, CO. -. r;?. f 'V 19-?. Iniinence ~ij3~:~3bbir de:uiy on :oyovors?apui3oon ;hminge. Jaumal ii7xiidiie Liminag;.uezi 36:223-Ic. ;?nuer (2. L. mdi. hi. L;ve!css ilr.::er.:i:hec;ll.oie Cznw,'amam) m xzscx L:m. :ow.ai aitiichie Ztsz.:es i1::4749. C;rzc:. \I. ii. :9?:!denr;fJing arrezts.r;ayere,reanan an iherp jn i nunhem Cahoma mcn. T~esls, Cmue:s>y of CalIrima. Bz:kc!c.i 7 J. W-cilcr. ma :go8 r:e-,c: ai C.i~m;r 4!. M.. M. M.!:lee: oi?avore rc:noval >r. :nee; 2ezreilar:an a lorze~ <dirhma. lo& Wiidie Manaermen: 5;:5?1&39. Cjnni:;lr i. E, 19-S. Frrdrzi ;ooa;.i ma cayore popuiat~acs:.aren:cw aisimulmon nodsis.?~ges X-45 in M. Seiorf. sd. CJ~OICS: Bxo~o~, Y,&~~C, md maagemen:.ac>dealc?ress, Ncx York C~nnaily; i. E imdi hrnung taker jhces-&lling coyores n wsrm Lionrma. LS. Farest Scrlcr. Ccmrd Tecmcai Kc3oit &\I!1418t 88. Cdnnodv, G. E. :99? L.vcircci prorecnon :oll~s a &c TJoiieo Starcs Prcczcdings oi r$e Grear?!ms Wilah~i D-e C~lniroi Workshop,. -?.- 1,:22-:,. Cannoily, G. E. and R. I. Bms E5cacy of compound i080 iivestock prorccnan cnllm? for hlilnq coyotcs rhai imck sacq Procrrding~ oi the Vcnejmr; Pesr Conierence :4:36%7b. C:maUy G. Z., R. LL. Th. W E. Howard ma W M Langhursr Sheq hiling bcnavioi oiapnve coyote.. Joumni oi7yiiiidiife LPmagrnmt W:1007 Canovcr. M. R, J G. Frsuck. mind D. E. \.lille: in expenmena1 cwluanon afuslnghstc ave.s:on :o cocuol sheep loss dueto ccyore pre&"on. Journai ofwilfife Lianneemenr 11: Caolahaa C The usc of dogs md calls to :kc cayores uaund dens md iesnng ue:w. Proceedings oithr Venebnrc?err Comkrcncc 14: Cappinger, X.. J. Larcnz, aid L. Cdppinge:. 1988'. huoducmg iivestuck gm~dmc di-s io sncrp and joar productn. Procecsingr oi the Eaaem Wlidliie Damage Canuoi Canference 1 :! Cmbtrer. 'i L. i48y Soc:ademogapiiy of an uncxplo~~cd ioyute populzian. Dnsenatian, UrilversiN of Idaho. 4lurcow Cisbur-, R. I., md i. W Sheldon. IP9R Cayotvotes md cad Zaeristcncc m Yc!loiustonc. Pngcs 127-j3 in T. W Clark A. P Curie:. S. C. Llmti, md F. hr:m. 5"s. Cmivores n ecosystems. Ydc L~nlvcrstp Press, New Haven. CT. Crooks, K. R.. and M. E. Sod= Mesopredator reirasc mi avliaunal txtmcnous ma hgmsnred aysrem. Nature 400: Cmmghm, V 3.. andr D. Dm'or* Rcccnr coyorencord iromflonh Qu;irre;iy Jbunai dfhc Florida.<cadeny of Sc~c-cr ;3: C:?hcr, B. 1.. and K.. Sprnccr Compc!i6-ie inrerjctions benuem coverer and San Joaqum kt foxes. Jo-d aimmaiog 79:2OL211. Davisou. R. P The clikt of cxda~ration an some pardmcrerr oi coyote papuinnoris i)~rsmarion. Utnh Shte Umveniy, Logan. Dc C;ilcst~ D. 5.. M. G. Cropsey Fiela test oia eoyoie~prooifence. Wadlife Sucieq Bullern 6:25&59. DeLorenzo, D. G., md V W. Huward, ir ivaluanao of sheep Lasses on a rang lmbmg openoan wirhour predarar canzai.n sourhrssrern New Mex;co. Find rtponza :he L.S. Fish ma Wild~fe Scmicc. Denver Widlife Rcscarch Cente; New Mexlco State Umveniq, Laa Crwes. D~ce, L. R A imly of dus<uyore hybnds. Journal of Mamalog 23: Drcwek. 1, ir, T. H. Uoun; K. J. 'finurnan. and E. i. Bic.helL 1981 Scrolodc svldencr ai1eprospaosis m a routh~m;\nzon~ coyore popuiat~on. Jomd ai'htidlife Disessrs 17: Cads, h 3.!948 Ecropmsltes iiam a scnrts uftexas coyores. J o d ofmmmalag 29:26&7i Cxly, I. 0.. J. C. Raethcii, md 0. R. Brewer h ccanarmc study of precnon h the!dho m.gc sheep mdus~, pioducjun qcle ipraeress Rsoon No. 182:. Idmo hunr;itud - Rescmcn. Um~enlri oi idah;, Moscow E!&r, 'N R., mnc.ll. iiqdm Us;of&sc~mmrhuncuonmraxonomc ie:;.manon oi cmds tom Missow.. Journal ui Mummaiac 2!:17- ilii. 41. W! 990. Canno1 oi ~oyatc depledation an livestock?regress in resemh md dcr,eiopmenr. Proceedings of rhc Venebmre nest Cooference S;&n!, M TIC oicmare survivor Audooan IOl:5Z-S9. Fisher. J. i9is The pialns joy moves cast Nanooni 'Niidbe 13!Li6. Fonhman-Quck 3. L., C. R. Gusravsan. md K. W Xusitmk 1985a. Coyote isnuol and msie &yesion. ppenrc 6:2534a. Fonbmm-Quck D. L.. C. R Guswvsan. and Y W. Rusmak Cayores md 135:~ 3ven10n: 73~ m~bors'.qly Appr~e?:lSL30. FOX. >L. V!Q7O A iar.~ar~rive ~:u(iy aia; ~sveioprr.mm ai5c:al ;xpressions m zamdr: 'Yoii. ;ayore. foxes. Br5~iv1or ; i-ale:. :. K. md L. 3. Kt:&. 198:. Non-.>\en~npns mues 2i cayores md solves in norrhmstern.ube.m. Jomd aimammaiog 62:403-5.

13

14 Hoors:. 3 :??6 5i;:nenrss ai-iainni; roezmal mmnrr ar redusag egg ~;n?unipnoa iy xmalim pemron: in :xpermencd maiysis. *Icsa,. ~trn - Si;is Univernv, hgm. Zanl. j 'T.. ma P V L:hs:. :^5. Si~ioplc irnani~rj in the coyare (Gnu Icinrm:. loesi dfic$mpm~ve Physirriogy md Psycnotag 39::070-:6. %ouston Fk IS.Inre:-spch:i ioad kr -mores m norrhern k!- :owsroiie Ndnona Pinr. ;omd oi-lppiiei Ecoiog Gowars \V. E mrms :o iisnngusn jrdis ai zcyores md 2omes.c mu,- Jcmzl oil1unm;uo~ 50::03-7:. lacdon. 3. H. T 195:.?n3. C:assuicztir,on ofrhe scrs dicayores. Pqrs :iz 5. Young mu 3. H. T. Jackson. cds. X,r cieve: sayare. 'k~&fe lanqcncac!mnsiimze, INashmgron. DC. :(;!y. 3. T, md E. 0. imn. :99:. 2fec:s of prey size, meal rlzc, mesi cornposioan md dady fiequenq ai <ding dn the recovrzy oi mdenr rernsm iron camvare sia;s. Cainndzan Iounai oizaoiog 75:lYIl-i- Kcnneiiv.,. J.!. :97Z Cworc ;-.crcducnon Pu; 1. il;e dumnon si.he seernarcgenic c:ic!e and ;?~did:.::~d spm mspon. Journal oixzproducave Fer"liy 3 1:!65-7C... ~,nnc:ly,j. J Cayore:cumdocnon.Pzges in11 Bckod rd Cqores: Bluicay, bc%;inor md mmagemsni. sademc Press, Xew "_ark K~mcUy, J, I, a d I. D. Robsns, i909, Femlitv oi;ayore-ioe,. hybnds...:oumd oii~awn;iiog jo:a;o-;1..,..utchcn. -4. >I.. 5..M. Ccsc. 2nd E. R. Schauicr 1999 Resowiz oamnanine bcr.vccn cliu-o:cs md *wit foxes: Spacc, me. md dic:. Cmadian Jounvl oizooio~ 77: ih4j-56. Kirchm, A. M., E. M. Grsc. md E. il Schsustc:. 3M)Oa. Cihm~es m coyote ~cnviq p:ltrm due :o :enucrd cxposus :o ;human prrseciiimn. Cminadim Jaurnai of Zuolou :Ctch<n..\. >I., E. LL. Gerr, and E. K. Schauster 2000b Long-rerm ipaiial stabliiy oicayore ( C~U!oron?) home rmgrs ir. iouthe%rcm C~ioraao. Canadla Jawnal oizaoiugy 78: Zcirn.m. D. i Swnt rnivikng in Cmdze. Symposium ui;hr Zao~ogcni Suciery of London 18: Klcman. D G., and C. A. Brsdy 197s Cnyorz behavior in the conrzxr oifrecrm caninlci:ssarch: Problems and per. icc:ivcs. Pages i63-88 :n LL. aekoif ;d. C~yotcs. araio::: Klem. D. ti.. ma!. behawor mdmnagcneni.ic~dcierolc Press. New Yak. F. Elsmbcrn Carnoanson of cad ind felid socriii Utah Stare UGvers~ry, Logan. :(nowiton. i; E. i972. Prellmi- srerprctations oiioyore papulanon mcchm- ~cs ~5th some xmagmcnr mpiic~ouns. ;ourmi uf Wildlire bima~ement Yl~awltoa, F. F., and E..LL. Gcse. iy95. Cayate papuiaaon processes re.risired Pages I 4 in D. Rollins. C. Richarcson, 1 Bldenshp, K. Caon. md S. Hake, sds. Cayores ;n illc suarhwerr: -4 compendium of our hiowledge. Texas Parks md Wiidiie DepanmenL Austin. Rnowkon. F F, mdl. C. Stauitvr Coyote populanonmrchsolcs: lncther look. hgcs in X. Bmcll, Lsismun. md 1 LI.?;rk cds. Symposium on n ~ i re;nliui~on d aiwiidll5 pupuim>ons. Foissr, Wudiie, md Rmsc Ex~cnmcnr Stahon. Umverritv oilhho. >Loscow. Frede"c:on, Cmada. i(nowlton, F. F., md S. L. Wbinrmore. 7'301. M p ccav~ty-tooth wdth mnus h m.how=,-age a d wiid-~xdghr ;oyares deremuned by radiography Wiidlire Soc~ety Yuilcm 29:DY-144.!(nowiron. F F. E. &I. Gcse, md Ll. LM. Jocger 199 Coyoyare depredaoon ianuoi:.an hteriacc brzveen 5iaiogy md manarmcnr. Journlil ai Range Lliroaoemcnt.'2:3984!2. KoeUer. G. >I., mi LL. G. Somocker Seasonal resource use mong molliazh lionr, iobcz~n. >ad soyoyares. Jomd ooimammaicgj 7239;-26. Kalenosky, 1i.B. l971.iiybndlman bemeen woiimdodcoyacr.joumaiui>lunmuia~, 532: Karschgen, L kcd 'wbss of coyores in ncrd-cenw >fissaun!fco<rd.ad Projcc: No. W-;3-R27). Llissoun Depamnenr of Conserranon. :Qe.+ag, L. W ?fir rsr md fail oik coyote on lslz Roylilr. >;mmakt 30:24-5:. Lmprczhr. J The reianonshp jewees :bod cornpennon and 'arszmg group me a sum; :;sn~vorcs. Z<asck.~? fur Tieryyc.ioio~r 26:5?7 2: LT;ICI.:. 5.. ~ ~ 4.1:&~.. 1. I93 Tie jlii UI~JS:C~ iily~ii-s ICau ;umon3):,;ommea~...oumi af!dmzaaiog~ :A.:ll72--J... L~umlrr. J. tv I98 :. Tcniord.r.ir.;inon m isyoie iccdizadon ntes. : o d oi Wddhie.memen<-15: L~unarc. '.'V., ma 3 L. K?Usr 198; Some-imge <lze af'zoyoies:.a cxniai re..?cx. loma, ~iwiililifr Mmageaex 18:! Lawreact. 3. ma 'F 3. 3osscn Ltultipie chmsrer mdysia af C~nis.'upiir hmns and,<amilinrs. wch 1 discdsnon ioi me re:atiawiups ai C~nw nyer Amencan iooiog?s;-:133-~1. Lai~eacc. 3. md 'N E. 3osser. :964 Tllr craniai n-idencz afhybndu3aon nnew Engiana C~nir. Biw~crs 350:l-13. Lawreace. 3.. md'v 3. F3assen Rcist~onshps oinilnh Amencan Canrr 3hom-a by imuiupie ciaractervlalysis ci~elemedpopulaoocs.?lges n \.I. W Fox, ed 3 c,mid imds. Vm Yarmd Rcinhold Xcw Yom. L e b a Y., A. Eisehwcr 8. Sanscn. L. D. 41r;i. R. 0.?;rrrran, P ; P. Gum. mdr :C Wdyc :YYi.inuogess;on~lfcoyorernrorhondndD*iA Into jyrnpalmc.hcricm gray wol~opaianons. 3,oiunon 45:lW :9. Lzhe:. P U. 1978~ Cqore commwcsncn. Pzges :2742 in M. Bckud cd. Cdyores: Sioiogy, behav:or, md mmngcnent..ac=de.mc Press, New Ybik. L2her. P N. : 97% Coyote vacalkiranons:.a lexlcoo md ;omprisons whather cmds..animal Bzhaviour 26: Like:. P. X RcpeUenrs md condirionrd av,xdanca. Plges 5661 in 1. S. Green. ;a. Piote;mg iivesrock born coyotes. L.S. Deamezi of.a.m. i,dhlre, h:ncuihxu Rtsearch Sc-ce. US. Shee? Experiment Starroo, Dubols, ID Lmhx. S. B. 1984a. Manaang coyore h a y prabirns ulth nodethili mchniqurs: Recent aavances in research. Proceedings of &c Eutcrn Wiidiifc Damage Canfcrence 1:! Linhan. 5. B. 1981b. Stroor-lghr mdsirendrilcer for prorec~ngf~nccd-pasnuc mu mge rhe-p From Lovote prcdanon. Prac+ccgs airhe Vertcbmre Pesi Conference I I:ljiCS6. Lmha S. B.. md F. F. ffiowlton Detemamng age ofcoyotes hy tooth c:menrum layen. Journal oiw~lalice?rlmagement jl:36i 65. L~nharr, 5. R.. H. H. Bmmm, md D. 5. 3dsc: Fieid c-ialuation of m anufemlrj agem. sulberterol. for hblung coyote qruduction. Tiansac - tions of rhc 4onh.hencan WiiGic Canirrencz 33: Lnhan, S. B.. R. T. Sterner, T. C. Cm.gm, and D. R. Henne Roman- doi guard dogs reduce shcep losses Id C3yOicS:.l prel-ary cvalmtion. Joumni oirmse Management T.mnan, S. B.. J 3. Robcns. md ti.!. Dascn Elecrric fencmg reducss coyorrprcdilnon dn paswedsheep. lorn1 ofhgc 4lmgemcm Linhan S. B., R. i Sterner, G. I Dasch, and J. W Thade EBicncy of lidr and sound stimuli %ircducmg coyorr ;rreda!ian upon pasmd sheep. Prorecr~on Ecology b:is-84. Linhan. S. B., G.!. Dasch. R. R.!ohnson, J. D. Robens, andc. JP~ckham. 1942~ Elecrromc.h&rhrcliing devices ior reducmg coyote depredation oo domestic she:?: EEC~LY under rmgc conditions md operationd use. Practrdingr oithe Vertebnce Pesr Canicicnce 15: Lmell, J. D. C., 1. Odden, LL. E. Smrh R. mrs, and I E. Swenson. i999. Lqc cmvares -bar kill iivesrock: Do,'problrm indivtduds"re3ily aisc! Wildliir Suciey Bdicnn 17: Llrvaias, J A Llavcmenrs md hab~tzt use 01' coyotes on the Wichita Mountams Nanonai Wiidiie ReQugc. Thrsts, Oklahuma Smc Uiuvm~ry, Stflmrer. MiiacCacken, J. G. 198!1. Cayore pey cholce: >\ rqiv Journd ufwtidliic Man- Igenenr 53: btwcmcken. J. G.. axi R. hi. Emen Cdyocc feeding suatesies m south- msrern Idaho: Oomal ioninns.. bv. m opoomsuc.. ;~re&tator? Journal of wddliie Mvlanagement 5i: >laha B. R Occumnce uinclmsnc cads % Nebraska. koccedings of-be Nebnsla Academy uisclence 5:1313. >S~jar, J. T, md 1..A. Shcrbumr IntenpecSc ieiaoansbips of coyotes. bobcars, and red foxes m wesem Mme. Jaumd ~iwudlife Management 51:60&i6. Mathwg, H. L 1973 Food md popuiation chmcrenstics oilow cnjoces. Iowa State Jaud of Rcscm2-17: McAico, J. K., md D. -4. :(1eoenow Prcdanan on age iheq with no predaior conuai. ;omd aixmge Mmagemmr 3 I: ~ McBr.de, R. T Piedator prorecrion ioilsr for :ivesrack. P?Wn?io. 3,312,306, :e;.stc:cd 0c:obcr 31, LS. Zxenr Oficc. WuhmgTon, -. UC. Mc3ndr. R. T Prebror cunuoi rouc ;;lib. Plrenr Xu. 1,138,386, ;egis- cersd Juiv ;7., 14821: ~ 5. ~ P3rem Ofice. Wasiunman 3C Lang-.lirraocz,;ocaiizanonj.:i ;o,8z,rss, Cdno iomns:. LIcCjr:::, Jomi oilluundo~# 56:34>50. LlcChs. >I.?. N. 5. 5nnm mu 'V 'V. Siiaw. :9?5 3tr:s ai:oyores =ex he h<;unw ili SWL-O Uanonal Mcnumcar ma Tucson,.dona. South-

15

16 )~l COYOTE (CUlliS fubul1.s) 481 of nonhem Ycil, Ea,olanC wlth obscnatmns on imd hybn&. Wildliie Monogaph Snow C. I Silrnc obienarlons on :tic bcha\,lonl md morp~olog!cal dev;lopmeni of soyor; pops.hcrrcm Zoologlrt 7:3ij-i) soulc, 1.E, D T Bolger.+. C. ilbcns. J. Wnghr,hi. Sounc:, zrds iiill.!988. Reconauucrrd dpamlcs of rapia cntincrions oi chaparrcl-iequmog btras lo urban habtwr ~slandi. Canscrvsnon Biology 2: Sp~~gr:~, J T lovemrnr patiems oi coyotes ili south-ccnrral W~shingtar. as drtemned by rildlo tclcmcny. D~sscnanan, \Vashingmil She Uniier sity, Pullman. StellHug, J. U, N. L. Gaes, and R. G. Sasses i978 Reproductive uhibitars for coyotc popoi.~tioi~ control: Devcloprncnrs and current ivatus. Pmccedingr oirhr Vertcbraa Peit Conference 8: Sterner, R r., illd S. A. Shunidkc. I978 Coyote liamqe-ian~ol ieseaick.x rcvicw and analysts. Pages in M. Bckorf, ed. Cuyates: Biology, behavior, and management. icadcmlc Prcss, Yew York. Thomas, C.U. mdp E. Hughes Plague suiveillance by seroloqlcsl testing of coyotes (Cunis luoiins) in 1.0s Angclrs Coio~ri: Califumia, Joumai of Wiidlifc Dlssases Thoma, N J., W J Forcyt. J. E Evemann, L. A Windberg, arid 1: F. JCnowltun S~roprcvalrncc of canine p,uvuvims 111 rvlld coyarcs from Texas, Llldi,.tud lddi/lo (iy ). Juun~al ofthehcrlzao Vctciltrary.Medica1.kssocimon 1X5: Thomas, R. E., M. L. Be=& T. J. Quan, L. F. Cirrtci, A. M. Rtirnes, and C. E. liulila Expcnmcntally ii:duced pbamc mfect~un~nthc rlrirrhem graa~lloppcr mouse (On),chocny.s Ieuco~us!er) acquircd by consmptlan of ihctcd prey lourndl of \Vildlifc Diseases 'Thamto~~,I. E., I< I<. Licll, ailcibl, J Rc~rdiln Inrernal parssltcs ofcoyotes it saiahcrn icnas lounlal of Wiidlifc Disrares Thurber, J hl, und R. 0. Pe:crson Changes io body she asbociared with range enpanilon k [he coyotc (Cunis ioirnni;. Journal of Wm~alogy 72: Thurber, J..VI, R. 0. Pcternio, J. D Woolinoron, ma J. A. Wcctich. ;9'12. Coyote cocxlstencz w~th volvcs on rhc Kznai Pcntnsuia, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:249S~Y8. T111, I. A, md 17 1; i(;iowltou Eticacy of drnmng in illlcviiiung coy^ uic iieprciiat~ons upon domestis sheep. Jounlal oi Wildlift Lianagemcot 47.Ii)lX-25. Tinun, R. M, and G. E. Cilmully How doyoirs kill shs-p. N,~riuo.il Wool Grower ;tl:ill5. Timm. R. Ll, and K. 11. Schtmdt blanaeelncat oroblcrns cncounrered. (I.....! :,! ', I. J.' '-.,:.,,:. :I,,..-:.,!!...!.,,.,,., ',5L,:..,,a?:.,.. >, 8., A...,.A:.,.,,,I.,<C c,,,...a~<*..l.," >:r..<,.<.::::. I..,.,,... <;,-r..la: :-' ('5 l>::brr,::.r., Agnculturc. Todd A. W 1985 Dernagraphlc wd dicory coinparisons offarest and farmiand coyote, C;lnis lununs. popularions m Aibibcna. Canadian Fir!d-Naruraiist 99: Todd A. W., and L. U Keltll Cilyotc demography dunng a snowshoe harc decline in Albma. Jawnal of Wildlife bliinagrment 47.39W0.1. Todd A. W, L. B.Kclrh, andc. A. Fischci 1981.Populat~onccolagy ofcoyotes dunng d liuctuiit~un of snowshoe harcs. Journal of WililliR Management 45: Trainer, D. 0, and F. F Knoivlton Scrolog~cv~d~nce ofdiszases mtexnr coyolcs. Journal ut Wildliie Miinagcnlcnr 32: Tiilkowsh, W bl Monnliry patterns ofiadlo-marked coyores in Tacksou liolc, Wyommg. Disscrmon, Univrrslty of Llaasacbu~ctts.Anhcrsr~ U.S. Dcpamrrenr of.k&?lcultwc Final cnvtronmmrd impact sratemzn!. Animal Damage Control Prognm, Val., 2. hums1 and Piat Hcalm Inspection Scrvlur, Washlogton, DC. US. Depamocnrafh&mculrure Shcepandgoiirprrdarurloss. US. Dcpmmen1 ui Agnculturr, National Agncuitunl Stausrics Boar4 Vf&tlmgran, -- "C. US. Fish and W~ldlifc Scrv~ce Predator ailmagc in the west:.4 study of coyote milnagcrilrrii altrrnativcs. I;S. Fish md Wildlife Smice, Washington, DC. VarlVurm, D, md S. E. Ilompson, Jr Oppoirunlsnc feeding by coyotes. Nanhwrsrrrn Science 56: Van Wormer, I Thc world ofthr coyore. Ljppincurt, Philadelphka. Voig. U. K., and B. D Eali Avotdancr of coyotes by red fox funilics. Journ~l of Wlldbfe Liauagcmcnt 47: Wadc. D Coyore damage:. survey oi its name and scope, conool measures and :heir dppiicntion. ages m M. BekaJT. sd. Coyoies: Biology behav~ar md manaycmcnr Academic Press, 4ew York. Wagner, r H Predator connol aod the she;? iuidusny, Rrglua Book, Ciaremonr, CA. Wagner. K. K., andhl. R. Sonaver 1999 Etiect ofprevenvarivecoyote hunringon sheep :osari ro covore piedarlon. Jowil oi\vildhic Clunsgcmenr Walsh, P. B., and J. LL Inglis Seasonal and,lie1 rare ai rpantanzow vocnlizar~on in cavotcs m soudi Texas, Jownal of \l-aiorv 70: Ysw ~mnbvick Frcdencron, Canada. Wewer, J. L Coyore-food base rebarionships m lackron Bole: Wyoming. Thesis, Utah State Uwersiry, Logan. Weaver 1 L Influrace of sk cmon upon cayotc populahoor in Jackson Hole, Wyornmg. Pages m hi S. Buycr and L. D. Hayden-Wing, cds. North irnencm c k Ecalugy. behavior and mmagemcnt Gmversi~y of Wyomicg, Lanmie. Wcwci, J. L., 2nd S. W Hilfman Dlffrrenrrill Jerecrabilin, ofrodmts in gray wolf icvts. Jounnl of Wildlife &lunagcrucnt 43: Wzils, M. C Coyote smscs in predarion: Envsronmentai influences on then relanve use. Behavlarvl Praccedings Wells, M. C., and P. N, L;:mcr lhe ieiatlvc unpanaoce oime distance senses in ioyotc predarory bchav~~ur hmlili Brhavtour?b:25i-58. Wells, >[. C., and M. BrkaR An obiervaiionill smdy of sczntmarhg by wild coyotes. Animal Behavlour 9: Weils,.M. C., and M. BckolP i'rshc~on by wlld coyotes: Bchavsoral and ecological analyses. Journal ofblazmaiogy 63: Wlntr, P J., K. Ralls, and C A. Vandexbtlt Whirc Overlap in habitat and food use between coyotes and Sm Jiaaqh kit foxes. Saurlrwsstem st i st40:3471) i KnTural 4!1: Williams, E S., E. 'r. Thornc, M, I G. Appci, ~ nd D. W Bclilbky Canine disrentpei in black-footed <errcia (IWusrei~~ nigrrpr~l ficm Wyoming. Journal oi Wildlife Diseoses 24: Wilson,P. J., S. Grewal, I. D. Lawfbrd I N. M. Hrai, A. G. Gmnaciil, D. Penaock J. B Thebcrgc, >I. : Theberge, D. R. big!, W. Waddell, R. E. Chambers, P C. Payuct. G. Gotile:; D. flus, and B. N. Wllire DNA profiics of hc eaitcrn Cmadian wolf and ihc red waifprovide evidence for a comnlon evoliltionwy lusrory mdcpende:~t of the gay woll Cmadlm Joilrnal of Zoology 78: Wmdbcrg, L. h Demugiapily of a hlgb-density coyotepopuiation. Canadian lour.aal aizoolagy Widberg, L. A Coyote respanscr to v~suui *rid olfactory stimuli related :o iarmliuianlv w~th an ma Canadian loumnl afzoolary. :I:?L4&54~ Wimlbrrg, L A, and F. F. Knou~lton blaiiagemcnr implications of' coyore ipacmg pinems m sourhwn Texas. Journal of WiidliCe bfanugcmmr 52: Windberg, L..A, and 1: F Knowitan Relative vulnerab~lity of coyotes to some capture procrdilres. Wildlife Suc~cry Bulletin W-~ndburg, L. A, ard C. D.\litchsli.!990 \Viaicr diets afcoyotcs in rclanan to prey abundmcc in southern Texas. Journal of >iarnmalogy 71: Windberg. I.. A, M. L. Anderson, andr M. Engemim Swlvul ofsoyares in southcm~exas. Journal of Wildlife Managemncnt 19: Wmndberg, L. 4, 11. M. Engems, and J. F. Broniaglnn Body size and condit~or~ofc~~ynres msuuthern ];eras. JournalofWildlifiDisenres27: Windberg, L. A,, S. M. Ebbcrt, and 8. Z Kelly Population charactenstics of coyotes (i'zi,iir lornzns) in the nortltern Cliil~u.lhuan drscn oinew )rtexico..lmencm hlidland Yaruralist 138: Whdbcrg, L. A, i F Knawlton. S. >I. Ebben, andb.1 Kelly. 1997b..kspecrs or' coyors predation an Angora goars. Journal of Range Management 50: JU. Winsom, M. J.. S. P Green, R. M Cowin, ande K. Frirrcll DiroJiiario ~nanitls in coyotes and foxes in \.lissaun. Journal of Wtldlife Diseaes?7: Woodruff, R. A,, and B. I..Kellcr Dispersal, daily activity, and hooine nnge of coyotes in routhessrern Idaho. Yonhwest Science 56: Wmter, D. H., and K Bciurschkr, K. I968 Comparative cymgenetic studies in the ordcr C hora. Chramosuma?4:336~82. Wimagernent Insnrute, Washington. DC Ltrnc BEKOFT, Depaiment crf Ei~vironmnru!. Popuiarian, and Organismic Biology, Umvenity of Colorado, Boulder, Coiurada Emall: marc. cdu. EMC hl. GLSE, Nalional Wildlife Research Ccnter, Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Services, Utah Sraie Umvcrslty, I.ugal, Utah Emad:

Coyote. Canis latrans. Other common names. Introduction. Physical Description and Anatomy. Eastern Coyote

Coyote. Canis latrans. Other common names. Introduction. Physical Description and Anatomy. Eastern Coyote Coyote Canis latrans Other common names Eastern Coyote Introduction Coyotes are the largest wild canine with breeding populations in New York State. There is plenty of high quality habitat throughout the

More information

Behavioral interactions between coyotes, Canis latrans, and wolves, Canis lupus, at ungulate carcasses in southwestern Montana

Behavioral interactions between coyotes, Canis latrans, and wolves, Canis lupus, at ungulate carcasses in southwestern Montana Western North American Naturalist Volume 66 Number 3 Article 12 8-10-2006 Behavioral interactions between coyotes, Canis latrans, and wolves, Canis lupus, at ungulate carcasses in southwestern Montana

More information

Lab 8 Order Carnivora: Families Canidae, Felidae, and Ursidae Need to know Terms: carnassials, digitigrade, reproductive suppression, Jacobson s organ

Lab 8 Order Carnivora: Families Canidae, Felidae, and Ursidae Need to know Terms: carnassials, digitigrade, reproductive suppression, Jacobson s organ Lab 8 Order Carnivora: Families Canidae, Felidae, and Ursidae Need to know Terms: carnassials, digitigrade, reproductive suppression, Jacobson s organ Family Canidae Canis latrans ID based on skull, photos,

More information

Bobcat. Lynx Rufus. Other common names. Introduction. Physical Description and Anatomy. None

Bobcat. Lynx Rufus. Other common names. Introduction. Physical Description and Anatomy. None Bobcat Lynx Rufus Other common names None Introduction Bobcats are the most common wildcat in North America. Their name comes from the stubby tail, which looks as though it has been bobbed. They are about

More information

Coyote (Canis latrans)

Coyote (Canis latrans) Coyote (Canis latrans) Coyotes are among the most adaptable mammals in North America. They have an enormous geographical distribution and can live in very diverse ecological settings, even successfully

More information

MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI 10:1 9. Coyote (Canis latrans) CHRISTOPHER L. MAGEE

MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI 10:1 9. Coyote (Canis latrans) CHRISTOPHER L. MAGEE MAMMALS OF MISSISSIPPI 10:1 9 Coyote (Canis latrans) CHRISTOPHER L. MAGEE Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, 39762, USA Abstract Canis latrans

More information

Original Draft: 11/4/97 Revised Draft: 6/21/12

Original Draft: 11/4/97 Revised Draft: 6/21/12 Original Draft: 11/4/97 Revised Draft: 6/21/12 Dear Interested Person or Party: The following is a scientific opinion letter requested by Brooks Fahy, Executive Director of Predator Defense. This letter

More information

Brent Patterson & Lucy Brown Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wildlife Research & Development Section

Brent Patterson & Lucy Brown Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wildlife Research & Development Section Coyote & Wolf Biology 101: helping understand depredation on livestock Brent Patterson & Lucy Brown Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Wildlife Research & Development Section 1 Outline 1. Description

More information

Loss of wildlands could increase wolf-human conflicts, PA G E 4 A conversation about red wolf recovery, PA G E 8

Loss of wildlands could increase wolf-human conflicts, PA G E 4 A conversation about red wolf recovery, PA G E 8 Loss of wildlands could increase wolf-human conflicts, PA G E 4 A conversation about red wolf recovery, PA G E 8 A Closer Look at Red Wolf Recovery A Conversation with Dr. David R. Rabon PHOTOS BY BECKY

More information

WILDLIFE DAMAGE Publication Series

WILDLIFE DAMAGE Publication Series WILDLIFE DAMAGE Publication Series WDS 09 -- 10 July 2009 INTRODUCTION Managing Wildlife Damage: Coyote (Canis latrans) Daniel W. Stull 1 and Michael T. Mengak 2 The coyote, also known as the prairie wolf,

More information

A California Education Project of Felidae Conservation Fund by Jeanne Wetzel Chinn 12/3/2012

A California Education Project of Felidae Conservation Fund by Jeanne Wetzel Chinn 12/3/2012 A California Education Project of Felidae Conservation Fund by Jeanne Wetzel Chinn 12/3/2012 Presentation Outline Fragmentation & Connectivity Wolf Distribution Wolves in California The Ecology of Wolves

More information

THE WOLF WATCHERS. Endangered gray wolves return to the American West

THE WOLF WATCHERS. Endangered gray wolves return to the American West CHAPTER 7 POPULATION ECOLOGY THE WOLF WATCHERS Endangered gray wolves return to the American West THE WOLF WATCHERS Endangered gray wolves return to the American West Main concept Population size and makeup

More information

Draw a line from the names below to the animals they match. Red Fox. Wild Turkey. Wood Duck. White-tailed Deer. Black Bear

Draw a line from the names below to the animals they match. Red Fox. Wild Turkey. Wood Duck. White-tailed Deer. Black Bear Science and Nature Cente Draw a line from the names below to the animals they match. Which animal do you like the best that you see in the nature center? Red Fox Wild Turkey Wood Duck White-tailed Deer

More information

Lynx Update May 25, 2009 INTRODUCTION

Lynx Update May 25, 2009 INTRODUCTION Lynx Update May 25, 2009 INTRODUCTION In an effort to establish a viable population of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Colorado, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) initiated a reintroduction effort

More information

Coyotes in legend and culture

Coyotes in legend and culture Coyotes: Wild and free on the urban interface Dana Sanchez Extension Wildlife Specialist Dana.Sanchez@oregonstate.edu 541-737-6003 Coyotes in legend and culture Coyote Canis latrans Canis latrans = barking

More information

Care For Us Arc$c Wolf (Canis lupus arctos)

Care For Us Arc$c Wolf (Canis lupus arctos) Care For Us Arc$c Wolf (Canis lupus arctos) Animal Welfare Animal welfare refers to an animal s state or feelings. An animal s welfare state can be positive, neutral or negative. An animal s welfare has

More information

Panther Habitat. Welcome to the. Who Are Florida Panthers? Panther Classification

Panther Habitat. Welcome to the. Who Are Florida Panthers? Panther Classification Welcome to the Panther Habitat Panther Classification Class: Mammalia Order: Carnivora Family: Felidae Genus: Puma Species: Concolor Subspecies (Southern U.S): P.c. coryi Who Are Florida Panthers? The

More information

American Bison (Bison bison)

American Bison (Bison bison) American Bison (Bison bison) The American Bison's recovery from near extinction parallels what happened to the European Bison, Bison bonasus. Once abundant and widespread in northern latitudes, their decline

More information

Wild Fur Identification. an identification aid for Lynx species fur

Wild Fur Identification. an identification aid for Lynx species fur Wild Fur Identification an identification aid for Lynx species fur Wild Fur Identifica- -an identification and classification aid for Lynx species fur pelts. Purpose: There are four species of Lynx including

More information

Bobcat Interpretive Guide

Bobcat Interpretive Guide Interpretive Guide Exhibit Talking Point: Our job as interpreters is to link what the visitors are seeing to The Zoo's conservation education messages. Our goal is to spark curiosity, create emotional

More information

Some Foods Used by Coyotes and Bobcats in Cimarron County, Oklahoma 1954 Through

Some Foods Used by Coyotes and Bobcats in Cimarron County, Oklahoma 1954 Through .180 PROOf OF THE QKLA. ACAD. OF SCI. FOR 1957 Some Foods Used by Coyotes and Bobcats in Cimarron County, Oklahoma 1954 Through 1956 1 RALPH J. ELLIS and SANFORD D. SCBEMNITZ, Oklahoma Cooperative Wildlife

More information

Factors that describe and determine the territories of canids Keith Steinmann

Factors that describe and determine the territories of canids Keith Steinmann Factors that describe and determine the territories of canids Keith Steinmann A home range is distinguished as the area of a landscape that an individual or pack resides in. A territory is made distinguishable

More information

Log in / Create Account NEWS & OPINION» FEATURE JULY 23, 2015 Tweet Email Print Favorite Share By Cathy Rosenberg click to enlarge David Ellis/Flickr Of Men and Wolves: & Tolerance on the Range F521 wandered

More information

Diet of Arctic Wolves on Banks and Northwest Victoria Islands,

Diet of Arctic Wolves on Banks and Northwest Victoria Islands, Diet of Arctic Wolves on Banks and Northwest Victoria Islands, 1992-2001 Nicholas C. Larter Department of Environment and Natural Resources Government of the Northwest Territories 2013 Manuscript Report

More information

In the News. Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) in Texas. From the Field. What is in a name? 11/15/2013

In the News. Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) in Texas. From the Field. What is in a name? 11/15/2013 Feral Hogs (Sus scrofa) in Texas In the News Mark Tyson, M.S. Extension Associate Texas A&M AgriLife Extension From the Field What is in a name? Wild Boar Wild Hog Wild Pig Feral Pig Feral Hog Razorback

More information

2014 Animal Reports Brady Did you know that the Polar Bear may also hunt by swimming beneath ice? Polar bears live in the arctic habitat with other animals like reindeer, arctic wolves, and arctic foxes.

More information

Coyotes Clever Tricksters, Protean Predators

Coyotes Clever Tricksters, Protean Predators 70004 CH C GGS 11/23/04 8:36 PM Page 447 COYOTES 447 Heinrich, B. 1999. Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Adventures with Wolf-Birds. New York: HarperCollins. Kilham, L. 1989 The American Crow and

More information

Removal of Alaskan Bald Eagles for Translocation to Other States Michael J. Jacobson U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK

Removal of Alaskan Bald Eagles for Translocation to Other States Michael J. Jacobson U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK Removal of Alaskan Bald Eagles for Translocation to Other States Michael J. Jacobson U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, AK Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) were first captured and relocated from

More information

Central Florida Invasive Mammals

Central Florida Invasive Mammals Central Florida Invasive Mammals Cause Harm Invasive species is an umbrella term referring to alien, exotic, nonindigenous, and non-native species. Invasive species are those that are not native to the

More information

Piping Plover. Below: Note the color of the sand and the plover s back.

Piping Plover. Below: Note the color of the sand and the plover s back. Piping Plover Below: Note the color of the sand and the plover s back. Above: Chicks and one egg left in the nest. Once the eggs hatch the chicks leave the nest to forage for food on the sandbar. Plovers

More information

The Amazingly Adapted Arctic Fox By Guy Belleranti

The Amazingly Adapted Arctic Fox By Guy Belleranti A fascinating hunter makes its home in the Arctic tundra. The fluffy white mammal is known to leap high in the air before pouncing on the burrow of its suspected prey. After a few seconds of furious digging,

More information

Top Ten Grape Insect Pests in Nebraska Chelsey M. Wasem and Frederick P. Baxendale Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Top Ten Grape Insect Pests in Nebraska Chelsey M. Wasem and Frederick P. Baxendale Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Apple Twig Borer Top Ten Grape Insect Pests in Nebraska Chelsey M. Wasem and Frederick P. Baxendale Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Insect Identification: Adults (beetles) are

More information

Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis This large, dark headed, broad-shouldered hawk is one of the most common and widespread hawks in North America. The Red-tailed hawk belongs to the genus (family) Buteo,

More information

Wolf Reintroduction in the Adirondacks. Erin Cyr WRT 333 Sue Fischer Vaughn. 10 December 2009

Wolf Reintroduction in the Adirondacks. Erin Cyr WRT 333 Sue Fischer Vaughn. 10 December 2009 Wolf Reintroduction in the Adirondacks Erin Cyr WRT 333 Sue Fischer Vaughn 10 December 2009 Abstract Descendants of the European settlers eliminated gray wolves from Adirondack Park over one hundred years

More information

Station #4. All information Adapted from:http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/activities/makeitahabitat/adaptations.html and other sites

Station #4. All information Adapted from:http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/activities/makeitahabitat/adaptations.html and other sites Adaptation Homework Station #1 GOAL: Avoid the Sun s heat and keep themselves cool. Animals spend the daylight hours hiding in burrows or behind boulders. They come out at night to hunt and forage for

More information

CORE LESSON: Adaptation Rooms

CORE LESSON: Adaptation Rooms CORE LESSON: Adaptation Rooms Objectives and Summary: Students explore the concept of animal adaptation by modeling the benefit of an adaptation in the introduction (teacher led), and by observing and

More information

Biology of rodents and lagomorphs Joanna Godawa Stormark. Taxonomy of rodents. Order: Rodentia (rodents) Class : Mammalia (mammals)

Biology of rodents and lagomorphs Joanna Godawa Stormark. Taxonomy of rodents. Order: Rodentia (rodents) Class : Mammalia (mammals) Biology of rodents and lagomorphs Joanna Godawa Stormark Taxonomy of rodents Class : Mammalia (mammals) Order: Rodentia (rodents) Family: Muride (rats and mice) Sub-family: Murinae Genus: Mus Species:

More information

New York State Mammals. Order Lagomorpha Order Rodentia

New York State Mammals. Order Lagomorpha Order Rodentia New York State Mammals Order Lagomorpha Order Rodentia FAMILY: LEPORIDAE Rabbits and hares Conspicuous tail Fenestra appears as bony latticework Some species molt seasonally Presence of a second incisor

More information

SKELETONS: Museum of Osteology Tooth and Eye Dentification Teacher Resource

SKELETONS: Museum of Osteology Tooth and Eye Dentification Teacher Resource SKELETONS: Museum of Osteology Tooth and Eye Dentification Teacher Resource Grade Levels: 3 rd 5 th Grade 3 rd Grade: SC.3.N.1.1 - Raise questions about the natural world, investigate them individually

More information

Note: Please return all items to their appropriate container on the cart, and make sure lids are secured.

Note: Please return all items to their appropriate container on the cart, and make sure lids are secured. MEXICAN GRAY WOLF (Canis lupus baileyi) TALKING POINTS WOLF CART INVENTORY Mexican gray wolf Skull Domestic dog skull Coyote pelt Wolf Resource Notebook Note: Please return all items to their appropriate

More information

Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Monthly Update May 1-31, 2016

Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Monthly Update May 1-31, 2016 Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project Monthly Update May 1-31, 2016 The following is a summary of Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project (Project) activities in the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area

More information

Biological aspects of wolf recolonization in Utah

Biological aspects of wolf recolonization in Utah Natural Resources and Environmental Issues Volume 10 Wolves in Utah Article 5 1-1-2002 Biological aspects of wolf recolonization in Utah T. Adam Switalski Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State

More information

Dogs of the World. By Camden Mumford

Dogs of the World. By Camden Mumford Dogs of the World By Camden Mumford Table of Contents K9 FAQS. Man s Best Friend 1 2 Surprising Senses 3 Dogs Got Jobs. 4 Dogs of History.. 6 Glossary... 8 K9 FAQs Dogs belong to the family Canis lupus

More information

Homework Case Study Update #3

Homework Case Study Update #3 Homework 7.1 - Name: The graph below summarizes the changes in the size of the two populations you have been studying on Isle Royale. 1996 was the year that there was intense competition for declining

More information

A Guide for FL WATCH Camera Trappers

A Guide for FL WATCH Camera Trappers A Guide for FL WATCH Camera Trappers John Van Niel, Co-PI CCURI and FLCC Professor Nadia Harvieux, Muller Field Station K-12 Outreach Sasha Ewing, FLCC Conservation Department Technician Past and present

More information

A. Body Temperature Control Form and Function in Mammals

A. Body Temperature Control Form and Function in Mammals Taxonomy Chapter 22 Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Class Mammalia Mammals Characteristics Evolution of Mammals Have hair and First appear in the mammary glands Breathe air, 4chambered heart, endotherms

More information

PLAGUE. Dan Salkeld. Postdoc, Lane Lab Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management UC Berkeley

PLAGUE. Dan Salkeld. Postdoc, Lane Lab Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management UC Berkeley PLAGUE Dan Salkeld Postdoc, Lane Lab Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management UC Berkeley Yersinia pestis Many hosts (>200 species) Many fleas (>250 species) Multiple modes of transmission

More information

High Risk Behavior for Wild Sheep: Contact with Domestic Sheep and Goats

High Risk Behavior for Wild Sheep: Contact with Domestic Sheep and Goats High Risk Behavior for Wild Sheep: Contact with Domestic Sheep and Goats Introduction The impact of disease on wild sheep populations was brought to the forefront in the winter of 2009-10 due to all age

More information

8 Fall 2014

8 Fall 2014 Do Wolves Cause National Park Service J Schmidt Garrey Faller R G Johnsson John Good 8 Fall 2014 www.wolf.org Trophic Cascades? Ever since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park, scientific

More information

The Greater Sage-grouse: Life History, Distribution, Status and Conservation in Nevada. Governor s Stakeholder Update Meeting January 18 th, 2012

The Greater Sage-grouse: Life History, Distribution, Status and Conservation in Nevada. Governor s Stakeholder Update Meeting January 18 th, 2012 The Greater Sage-grouse: Life History, Distribution, Status and Conservation in Nevada Governor s Stakeholder Update Meeting January 18 th, 2012 The Bird Largest grouse in North America and are dimorphic

More information

Pre-lab homework Lab 8: Food chains in the wild.

Pre-lab homework Lab 8: Food chains in the wild. Pre-lab homework Lab 8: Food chains in the wild. Lab Section: Name: Put your field hat on and complete the questions below before coming to lab! The bits of information you and your classmates collect

More information

complex in cusp pattern. (3) The bones of the coyote skull are thinner, crests sharper and the

complex in cusp pattern. (3) The bones of the coyote skull are thinner, crests sharper and the DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE SKULLS OF S AND DOGS Grover S. Krantz Archaeological sites in the United States frequently yield the bones of coyotes and domestic dogs. These two canines are very similar both

More information

Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why

Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: who, how, where, when, and why University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection

More information

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report This report to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission presents information on the status, distribution, and management of wolves in the State

More information

Polar Bear Watch Scavenger Hunt

Polar Bear Watch Scavenger Hunt Polar Bear Watch Scavenger Hunt answer key (Answers are in red) Directions for Teachers/Educational Leaders: Please guide your team through the scavenger hunt and record your team s responses. Be sure

More information

Bailey, Vernon The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna pp.

Bailey, Vernon The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna pp. E. Literature Cited Bailey, Vernon. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna 55. 416 pp. Boitani, L. 2003. Wolf Conservation and Recovery. In: Wolves, Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.

More information

CLUSTERING AND GENETIC ANALYSIS OF BODY RESERVES CHANGES THROUGHOUT PRODUCTIVE CYCLES IN MEAT SHEEP

CLUSTERING AND GENETIC ANALYSIS OF BODY RESERVES CHANGES THROUGHOUT PRODUCTIVE CYCLES IN MEAT SHEEP CLUSTERING AND GENETIC ANALYSIS OF BODY RESERVES CHANGES THROUGHOUT PRODUCTIVE CYCLES IN MEAT SHEEP MACE Tiphaine 1, Gonzalez-Garcia E. 2, Carriere F. 3, Douls S. 3, Foulquié D. 3, Robert-Granié C. 1,

More information

Wolf Dens 101: Location, Location, Location PA G E 4 Native Americans and the Wolf A Different Story PA G E Watching and Learning PA G E 1 1

Wolf Dens 101: Location, Location, Location PA G E 4 Native Americans and the Wolf A Different Story PA G E Watching and Learning PA G E 1 1 $ 6.95 Wolf Dens 101: Location, Location, Location PA G E 4 Native Americans and the Wolf A Different Story PA G E Watching and Learning PA G E 1 1 8 Dave Mech Wolf-litter sizes average six pups, except

More information

Species - Habitat Model for Coyote

Species - Habitat Model for Coyote M_CALA_Merritt TSA Page 1 of 11 Species - Habitat Model for Original model and ratings table prepared by Upper Nicola Indian Band. Edited by Les Gyug, Okanagan Wildlife Consulting, January, 2008. Species

More information

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Productivity and Home Range Characteristics in a Shortgrass Prairie. Rosemary A. Frank and R.

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Productivity and Home Range Characteristics in a Shortgrass Prairie. Rosemary A. Frank and R. Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Productivity and Home Range Characteristics in a Shortgrass Prairie Rosemary A. Frank and R. Scott Lutz 1 Abstract. We studied movements and breeding success of resident

More information

Y Use of adaptive management to mitigate risk of predation for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia

Y Use of adaptive management to mitigate risk of predation for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia Y093065 - Use of adaptive management to mitigate risk of predation for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia Purpose and Management Implications Our goal was to implement a 3-year, adaptive

More information

Livestock Guard Dog Case Study

Livestock Guard Dog Case Study Livestock Guard Dog Case Study Lewis Ranch, Val Verde County Dr. Reid Redden Extension Sheep & Goat Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Dr. John Tomecek Extension Wildlife Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife

More information

Analysis of Coyote Long-Distance Vocalizations

Analysis of Coyote Long-Distance Vocalizations Jackson Hole Research Station Annual Report Volume 1974 Jackson Hole Biological Research Station - Annual Report - 1974 Article 12 1974 Analysis of Coyote Long-Distance Vocalizations Philip N. Lehner Colorado

More information

Table of Threatened Animals in Amazing Animals in Australia s National Parks and Their Traffic-light Conservation Status

Table of Threatened Animals in Amazing Animals in Australia s National Parks and Their Traffic-light Conservation Status Table of Threatened Animals in Amazing Animals in Australia s National Parks and Their Traffic-light Conservation Status Note: Traffic-light conservation status for the book was determined using a combination

More information

REPORT TO THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION. A STATUS REVIEW OF THE GRAY WOLF (Canis lupus) IN CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION. A STATUS REVIEW OF THE GRAY WOLF (Canis lupus) IN CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE REPORT TO THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION A STATUS REVIEW OF THE GRAY WOLF (Canis lupus) IN CALIFORNIA Photo courtesy of ODFW CHARLTON

More information

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2014 Annual Report

Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2014 Annual Report Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management 2014 Annual Report This report to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission presents information on the status, distribution, and management of wolves in the State

More information

How Does Photostimulation Age Alter the Interaction Between Body Size and a Bonus Feeding Program During Sexual Maturation?

How Does Photostimulation Age Alter the Interaction Between Body Size and a Bonus Feeding Program During Sexual Maturation? 16 How Does Photostimulation Age Alter the Interaction Between Body Size and a Bonus Feeding Program During Sexual Maturation? R A Renema*, F E Robinson*, and J A Proudman** *Alberta Poultry Research Centre,

More information

WHO IS THE URBAN COYOTE? William O. Wirtz, II, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biology, Pomona College, Claremont, CA

WHO IS THE URBAN COYOTE? William O. Wirtz, II, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biology, Pomona College, Claremont, CA WHO IS THE URBAN COYOTE? William O. Wirtz, II, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biology, Pomona College, Claremont, CA Note: This was written for the DLPOA and was e-mailed to the Hoofbeats editor. I first

More information

Livestock Guard Dog Case Study

Livestock Guard Dog Case Study Livestock Guard Dog Case Study Jernigan Ranch, Pecos County Dr. Reid Redden Extension Sheep & Goat Specialist Dr. John Tomecek Extension Wildlife Specialist Dr. John Walker Resident Director of Research

More information

Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management.

Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. Bighorn Lamb Production, Survival, and Mortality in South-Central Colorado Author(s): Thomas N. Woodard, R. J. Gutiérrez, William H. Rutherford Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management,

More information

New Jersey Furbearer Management Newsletter Winter New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Upland Wildlife and Furbearer Project

New Jersey Furbearer Management Newsletter Winter New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Upland Wildlife and Furbearer Project New Jersey Furbearer Management Newsletter Winter 2013-14 New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife Upland Wildlife and Furbearer Project Deadlines and Dates to Remember- Beaver and Otter Trapping Season

More information

Introduction to Our Class Case Study Isle Royale

Introduction to Our Class Case Study Isle Royale ModelSim Population Biology 2014v3.0- Center for Connected Learning at Northwestern University Isle Royale Background Information Ecosystems are often difficult to understand because they usually include

More information

Aggression and social structure

Aggression and social structure Aggression and social structure What is aggression? Any behavior that cause injuries to other animal Social interaction with the intention to inflict damage Hostile, injurious or destructive behavior caused

More information

Skulls & Evolution. 14,000 ya cro-magnon. 300,000 ya Homo sapiens. 2 Ma Homo habilis A. boisei A. robustus A. africanus

Skulls & Evolution. 14,000 ya cro-magnon. 300,000 ya Homo sapiens. 2 Ma Homo habilis A. boisei A. robustus A. africanus Skulls & Evolution Purpose To illustrate trends in the evolution of humans. To demonstrate what you can learn from bones & fossils. To show the adaptations of various mammals to different habitats and

More information

Black Bear. Ursus americanus

Black Bear. Ursus americanus Black Bear Ursus americanus Other common names American Black Bear Introduction Black bears are the second largest mammal in New York, but they re actually the smallest bear species in North America. They

More information

Get ready to start your Expedition!

Get ready to start your Expedition! Get ready to start your Expedition! What is an Expedition? An Expedition is a guided, themed interactive tour of a specific area of the Zoo. Please note: You will not see the entire Zoo on your Expedition.

More information

Pre-lab Homework Lab 9: Food Webs in the Wild

Pre-lab Homework Lab 9: Food Webs in the Wild Lab Section: Name: Pre-lab Homework Put your field hat on and complete the questions below before coming to lab! As always, it is expected that you have supplemented your understanding by reading about

More information

1. Hair 2. Mammary glands produce milk 3. Specialized teeth 4. 3 inner ear bones 5. Endothermic 6. Diaphragm 7. Sweat, oil and scent glands 8.

1. Hair 2. Mammary glands produce milk 3. Specialized teeth 4. 3 inner ear bones 5. Endothermic 6. Diaphragm 7. Sweat, oil and scent glands 8. Class Mammalia The Mammals Key Characteristics of Mammals 1. Hair 2. Mammary glands produce milk 3. Specialized teeth 4. 3 inner ear bones 5. Endothermic 6. Diaphragm 7. Sweat, oil and scent glands 8.

More information

Module 2.4: Small Mammals Interpreting with Chinchillas

Module 2.4: Small Mammals Interpreting with Chinchillas Module 2.4: Small Mammals Interpreting with Chinchillas Interpreting with Chinchillas: The theme of your conversations may differ from group to group depending on the program, and the age of your audience.

More information

Did you know that the male great horned owl is smaller than the female? The great horned owl lives in the desert with other animals like rattle snakes

Did you know that the male great horned owl is smaller than the female? The great horned owl lives in the desert with other animals like rattle snakes 2014 Animal Reports Did you know that the male great horned owl is smaller than the female? The great horned owl lives in the desert with other animals like rattle snakes,coyotes,hawks and wood chucks.

More information

Wolves. Wolf conservation is at a crossroads. The U.S. Fish and. A Blueprint for Continued Wolf Restoration And Recovery in the Lower 48 States

Wolves. Wolf conservation is at a crossroads. The U.S. Fish and. A Blueprint for Continued Wolf Restoration And Recovery in the Lower 48 States Wolves Places for A Blueprint for Continued Wolf Restoration And Recovery in the Lower 48 States Lamar Valley, Yellowstone National Park Mike Cavaroc/Free Roaming Photography Wolf conservation is at a

More information

Wolves By Gail Gibbons. Recommended Reading for grades 3-5

Wolves By Gail Gibbons. Recommended Reading for grades 3-5 Wolves By Gail Gibbons Recommended Reading for grades 3-5 KP For centuries, people have been afraid of wolves, yet these animals tend to be shy and live peacefully among themselves. Here is some information

More information

Using GPS to Analyze Behavior of Domestic Sheep. Prepared and presented by Bryson Webber Idaho State University, GIS Center

Using GPS to Analyze Behavior of Domestic Sheep. Prepared and presented by Bryson Webber Idaho State University, GIS Center Using GPS to Analyze Behavior of Domestic Sheep Prepared and presented by Bryson Webber Idaho State University, GIS Center 1 Importance of Study Predators use domestic livestock as a food source Predation

More information

Owyhee County 4-H. Cloverbud Dog Activity Book

Owyhee County 4-H. Cloverbud Dog Activity Book Owyhee County 4-H Cloverbud Dog Activity Book Name Age Year in 4-H 20 Club Name Member s Signature Parent/Guardian s Signature Leader s Signature My dog s name is My dog is a: boy girl I don t know What

More information

SLOW DOWN, LOVE WIZARD. HERE S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE HORNED LIZARD.

SLOW DOWN, LOVE WIZARD. HERE S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE HORNED LIZARD. SLOW DOWN, LOVE WIZARD. HERE S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE HORNED LIZARD. Horned lizards predominately eat ants. In small doses the ants venom does not harm the lizard; however, a swarm can kill an

More information

A Lynx In Their Den [Shifting Desires 1] (Siren Publishing Menage Everlasting) By Marla Monroe

A Lynx In Their Den [Shifting Desires 1] (Siren Publishing Menage Everlasting) By Marla Monroe A Lynx In Their Den [Shifting Desires 1] (Siren Publishing Menage Everlasting) By Marla Monroe If you are looking for a book by Marla Monroe A Lynx in Their Den [Shifting Desires 1] (Siren Publishing Menage

More information

Exceptions: Somebody liked snakes. Some people disliked dogs, geese, sharks

Exceptions: Somebody liked snakes. Some people disliked dogs, geese, sharks Unit 1: ANIMALS Exceptions: Somebody liked snakes Some people disliked dogs, geese, sharks Both animals are fascinating & worthy of our interest ANIMAL NAMES Taxonomy is a branch of biology that categorizes

More information

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE BROOD-REARING HABITAT MANIPULATION IN MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH, USE OF TREATMENTS, AND REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY ON PARKER MOUNTAIN, UTAH

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE BROOD-REARING HABITAT MANIPULATION IN MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH, USE OF TREATMENTS, AND REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY ON PARKER MOUNTAIN, UTAH GREATER SAGE-GROUSE BROOD-REARING HABITAT MANIPULATION IN MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH, USE OF TREATMENTS, AND REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY ON PARKER MOUNTAIN, UTAH Abstract We used an experimental design to treat greater

More information

ABSTRACT GLOSSARY OF TERMS. Layman Description

ABSTRACT GLOSSARY OF TERMS. Layman Description VAROA MITE REPRODUCTIONS GUIDELINE Courtesy of Jeff Harris & Robert Danka USDA Honey Bee Breeding, Genetics and Physiology Lab 1157 Ben Hur Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70820 ABSTRACT The foundress mite is reproductive

More information

A-l. Students shall examine the circulatory and respiratory systems of animals.

A-l. Students shall examine the circulatory and respiratory systems of animals. Animal Science A-l. Students shall examine the circulatory and respiratory systems of animals. 1. Discuss the pathway of blood through the heart and circulatory system. 2. Describe and compare the functions

More information

The Effect of Ram Exposure on Uterine Involution and Luteal Function During the Postpartum Period of Hair Sheep Ewes in the Tropics 1

The Effect of Ram Exposure on Uterine Involution and Luteal Function During the Postpartum Period of Hair Sheep Ewes in the Tropics 1 The Effect of Ram Exposure on Uterine Involution and Luteal Function During the Postpartum Period of Hair Sheep Ewes in the Tropics 1 R. W. Godfrey 2, M. L. Gray, and J. R. Collins Agricultural Experiment

More information

Western Rivers Pursuit Call List available from BushWear

Western Rivers Pursuit Call List available from BushWear Western Rivers Pursuit Call List available from BushWear Bear (Brown) ORION Bear Cub Grunts ORION Bear Growl (Grizzly) ORION Bobcat Distress Bobcat Purring Buck Dominant Grunt Buck Grunt 2 (Tending) ORION

More information

LESSON 2: Outfoxed? Red and Gray Fox Niches and Adaptations

LESSON 2: Outfoxed? Red and Gray Fox Niches and Adaptations LESSON 2: Outfoxed? Red and Gray Fox Niches and Adaptations GRADES: 6-8 OBJECTIVE: The goal of wildlife ecologists is to study how wild animals interact with their environment. One of the most common questions

More information

Correlation of. Animal Science Biology & Technology, 3/E, by Dr. Robert Mikesell/ MeeCee Baker, 2011, ISBN 10: ; ISBN 13:

Correlation of. Animal Science Biology & Technology, 3/E, by Dr. Robert Mikesell/ MeeCee Baker, 2011, ISBN 10: ; ISBN 13: Correlation of Animal Science Biology & Technology, 3/E, by Dr. Robert Mikesell/ MeeCee Baker, 2011, ISBN 10: 1435486374; ISBN 13: 9781435486379 to Indiana s Agricultural Education Curriculum Standards

More information

Exercise 4: Animal Adaptations

Exercise 4: Animal Adaptations Exercise 4: Animal Adaptations Introduction There are approximately 1.5 million species of organisms that have been described and named today. But, some scientists estimate that we may have as many as

More information

Bulletin 467 May R. T. Burdick. Colorado Experiment Station Colorado State College Fort Collins

Bulletin 467 May R. T. Burdick. Colorado Experiment Station Colorado State College Fort Collins Bulletin 467 May 1941 Factors that Sheep Affect Income R. T. Burdick Colorado Experiment Station Colorado State College Fort Collins Factors that Affect Sheep Income R,. T. B"URDICK, l\ssociate ECONOl\lIST

More information

Snowshoe Hare and Canada Lynx Populations

Snowshoe Hare and Canada Lynx Populations Snowshoe Hare and Canada Lynx Populations Ashley Knoblock Dr. Grossnickle Bio 171 Animal Biology Lab 2 December 1, 2014 Ashley Knoblock Dr. Grossnickle Bio 171 Lab 2 Snowshoe Hare and Canada Lynx Populations

More information

Breeding Icelandic Sheepdog article for ISIC 2012 Wilma Roem

Breeding Icelandic Sheepdog article for ISIC 2012 Wilma Roem Breeding Icelandic Sheepdog article for ISIC 2012 Wilma Roem Icelandic Sheepdog breeders should have two high priority objectives: The survival of the breed and the health of the breed. In this article

More information