Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Merely consider the facts dispassionately—admittedly a difficult task when they involve a creature
that inspires such diametrically opposed and passionately held views. After many decades, vast efforts
by hordes of people, and the expenditure of countless millions of dollars, there are more coyotes than
ever. What's more, they've expanded their range enormously during that time, and now can be found
almost everywhere.
I recall rather vividly the wise words of my friend Benjamin Day Jr., who at that time was chief
of wildlife management for the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Coyotes were just becoming
widespread in Vermont, and there were loud cries that we should “do something” to control or, if pos-
sible, eradicate them. In response, animal-rights activists, who had adopted the Native American term
of God's Dog, rushed to the animal's defense and worried publicly that this recent arrival to the East
would be exterminated.
When I broached these conflicting notions to Ben, he suffered a near-fit of laughter. “Consider this,”
he told me. “In parts of the West where almost literally there's not a bush to hide behind, humans have
tried everything to eradicate the coyote. They've tried guns, traps, dogs, gassing dens, hunting from
airplanes, a variety of poisons, and anything else that could be devised—all without success. If they
couldn't succeed under those conditions, how does anyone think that coyotes can be controlled, let
alone eradicated, in a state that's 80 percent forested?”
Because of the general lack of success in controlling coyotes, there are those who advocate dropping
all coyote control. They believe that if we stop killing coyotes, populations will actually decline, and
depredation on sheep and other valuables will be reduced. This approach has its own problems, though.
For one thing, it's an unproven theory that may or may not work. Second, even those advocating this
approach admit that coyote numbers would probably increase for a time until the coyotes settled into
a new and more natural equilibrium. Under those circumstances, agricultural losses would temporarily
increase—something that sheep ranchers and others would be highly unlikely to tolerate.
Does all of this mean there's no course of action that promises greater success than our present ef-
forts? No: a multifaceted strategy might work considerably better than either the present extreme of
massive coyote killing or the alternative extreme of no coyote killing.
Because only a relatively small percentage of coyotes actually cause serious agricultural damage,
targeting control efforts more precisely toward those specific animals would save a substantial amount
of money. That money, in turn, would likely be far more efficiently used for several things. These in-
clude providing sheep growers with trained guard dogs or llamas (the latter reputedly hate coyotes and
drive them away), and helping with the cost of better fencing. Certainly this more diverse strategy won't
eliminate the problem of coyotes killing livestock, but it might well reduce it substantially. This ap-
proach isn't sloppy sentimentality about killing coyotes; rather, it's a practical view of value received
for money invested.
Coyotes are justly famous for their vocal prowess—a fact recognized by the animal's scientific
name.
Canis latrans
is Latin for “barking dog,” and if barking is interpreted broadly to encompass a
whole range of sounds, the name is certainly apt! Coyote calls range from an extremely doglike bark
