County agricultural agents in all 82 counties of Mississippi and Extension Wildlife Specialists in the other 10 southeastern states were asked to respond to a short questionnaire on coyote damage in their respective county or state. The questionnaire requested the respondents to: 1) indicate if the number of coyote reports have increased, decreased, or remained stable over the last 5 years, 2) indicate the number of reports they were aware of in the last year, 3) report the type of damage and the associated economic loss, 4) estimate the economic loss over the last 5 years, and 5) provide any additional comments

Jones, Edwin J.

English

DigitalCommons@USU

COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES by Edwin J. Jones 1/ County agricultural agents in all 82 counties of Mississippi and Exten-sion Wildlife Specialists in the other 10 southeastern states were asked to respond to a short question-naire on coyote damage in their respective county or state. The questionnaire requested the respon-dents to: 1) indicate if the number of coyote reports have increased, decreased, or remained stable over the last 5 years, 2) indicate the number of reports they were aware of in the last year, 3) report the type of damage and the associated economic loss, 4) estimate the economic loss over the last 5 years, and 5) provide any additional com-ments. Forty-six county agents responded to the questionnaire. The number of reports have increased in 37 counties, have remained stable in 5 counties, decreased in 1 county, and no indi-cation from the 3 remaining counties. In counties responding, the average number of reports for the period September 1986 to September 1987 was 20, and the range was 1 to 200. The type of damage and number of counties reporting were: watermelons (31), calves (28), cows (8), poultry (7), dogs (7), sheep (6), goats (5), swine (1), and rural gardens (1). Seven counties have had no reports or complaints of coyote damage. In terms of eco-nomic loss the estimated damage was; calves ($39,950), watermelons ($17,145), cows ($8,650), dogs ($2,100), sheep ($1,885), poultry ($430), goats ($335), swine ($160), and rural gardens ($100). Miscel-laneous estimated losses were: chewed irrigation pipes ($30), cattle harassment ($200), and other crop damage ($1,555). The total estimated damage was $72,540. I/Extension Wildlife Specialist, Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, Mississippi State, MS 320 Other concerns reported by the county agents were the impact of coyotes on wildlife populations, the potential increase in damage as the coyote population increases, and that coyotes are blamed for damage caused by dogs. County agents expressed the need for a bounty. Although these estimates are based on county agent reports, the responses also reflect the perceptions of other agencies involved in coyote damage control. Responses were received from 8 of the southeastern states. Six states indicated that reports had increased and 2 states indicated that they had decreased over the last five years. Most of the states indicated that they had a few confirmed reports. Tore primary problems were associated with calves, sheep, and watermelons. Louisiana and Arkansas indicated that reports have declined. This is probably due to more familiarity with coyotes and preventative measures such as better livestock husbandry practices and the use of electric fences to protect melons. Although the values reported are rough estimates, it does indicate that coyotes are responsible for considerable damage in the south-eastern states. Because the coyote is a relatively recent inhabitant of the Southeast, there is consider-able concern about the impact of coyotes on livestock, crops, wildlife, pets, and people. As the population continues to increase, the number of complaints will probably increase until producers learn to use preven-tative measures. 

Coyote Damage in the Southeastern United States

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
3 - Third Eastern Wildlife Damage Control 
Conference (1987) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences 
October 1987 
COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 
Edwin J. Jones 
Extension Wildlife Specialist, Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc3 
 Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons 
Jones, Edwin J., "COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES" (1987). 3 - Third Eastern 
Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1987). 30. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc3/30 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 3 - Third Eastern Wildlife 
Damage Control Conference (1987) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - 
Lincoln. 
COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
by Edwin J. Jones 1/
County agricultural agents in all
82 counties of Mississippi and Exten-
sion Wildlife Specialists in the
other 10 southeastern states were
asked to respond to a short question-
naire on coyote damage in their
respective county or state. The
questionnaire requested the respon-
dents to: 1) indicate if the number
of coyote reports have increased,
decreased, or remained stable over
the last 5 years, 2) indicate the
number of reports they were aware
of in the last year, 3) report the
type of damage and the associated
economic loss, 4) estimate the
economic loss over the last 5 years,
and 5) provide any additional com-
ments .
Forty-six county agents responded
to the questionnaire. The number of
reports have increased in 37 counties ,
have remained stable in 5 counties,
decreased in 1 county, and no indi-
cation from the 3 remaining counties.
In counties responding, the
average number of reports for the
period September 1986 to September
1987 was 20, and the range was 1 to
200. The type of damage and number
of counties reporting were:
watermelons (31), calves (28), cows
(8), poultry (7), dogs (7), sheep
(6), goats (5), swine (1), and rural
gardens (1). Seven counties have
had no reports or complaints of
coyote damage. In terms of eco-
nomic loss the estimated damage was;
calves ($39,950), watermelons
($17,145), cows ($8,650), dogs
($2,100), sheep ($1,885), poultry
($430), goats ($335), swine ($160),
and rural gardens ($100). Miscel-
laneous estimated losses were:
chewed irrigation pipes ($30),
cattle harassment ($200), and other
crop damage ($1,555). The total
estimated damage was $72,540.
^/Extension Wildlife Specialist,
Mississippi Cooperative Extension
Service, Mississippi State, MS
Other concerns reported by the county
agents were the impact of coyotes on
wildlife populations, the potential
increase in damage as the coyote
population increases, and that
coyotes are blamed for damage caused
by dogs. County agents expressed
the need for a bounty. Although
these estimates are based on county
agent reports, the responses also
reflect the perceptions of other
agencies involved in coyote damage
control.
Responses were received from 8 of
the southeastern states. Six states
indicated that reports had increased
and 2 states indicated that they had
decreased over the last five years.
Most of the states indicated that
they had a few confirmed reports. The
primary problems were associated with
calves, sheep, and watermelons.
Louisiana and Arkansas indicated that
reports have declined. This is
probably due to more familiarity with
coyotes and preventative measures
such as better livestock husbandry
practices and the use of electric
fences to protect melons.
Although the values reported are
rough estimates, it does indicate
that coyotes are responsible for
considerable damage in the south-
eastern states. Because the coyote
is a relatively recent inhabitant
of the Southeast, there is consider-
able concern about the impact of
coyotes on livestock, crops, wildlife,
pets, and people. As the population
continues to increase, the number of
complaints will probably increase
until producers learn to use preven-
tative measures .
320


COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 3 - Third Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1987) Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences October 1987 COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES Edwin J. Jones Extension Wildlife Specialist, Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc3  Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Jones, Edwin J., "COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES" (1987). 3 - Third Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1987). 30. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc3/30 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in 3 - Third Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference (1987) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. COYOTE DAMAGE IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATESby Edwin J. Jones 1/County agricultural agents in all82 counties of Mississippi and Exten-sion Wildlife Specialists in theother 10 southeastern states wereasked to respond to a short question-naire on coyote damage in theirrespective county or state. Thequestionnaire requested the respon-dents to: 1) indicate if the numberof coyote reports have increased,decreased, or remained stable overthe last 5 years, 2) indicate thenumber of reports they were awareof in the last year, 3) report thetype of damage and the associatedeconomic loss, 4) estimate theeconomic loss over the last 5 years,and 5) provide any additional com-ments .Forty-six county agents respondedto the questionnaire. The number ofreports have increased in 37 counties ,have remained stable in 5 counties,decreased in 1 county, and no indi-cation from the 3 remaining counties.In counties responding, theaverage number of reports for theperiod September 1986 to September1987 was 20, and the range was 1 to200. The type of damage and numberof counties reporting were:watermelons (31), calves (28), cows(8), poultry (7), dogs (7), sheep(6), goats (5), swine (1), and ruralgardens (1). Seven counties havehad no reports or complaints ofcoyote damage. In terms of eco-nomic loss the estimated damage was;calves ($39,950), watermelons($17,145), cows ($8,650), dogs($2,100), sheep ($1,885), poultry($430), goats ($335), swine ($160),and rural gardens ($100). Miscel-laneous estimated losses were:chewed irrigation pipes ($30),cattle harassment ($200), and othercrop damage ($1,555). The totalestimated damage was $72,540.^/Extension Wildlife Specialist,Mississippi Cooperative ExtensionService, Mississippi State, MSOther concerns reported by the countyagents were the impact of coyotes onwildlife populations, the potentialincrease in damage as the coyotepopulation increases, and thatcoyotes are blamed for damage causedby dogs. County agents expressedthe need for a bounty. Althoughthese estimates are based on countyagent reports, the responses alsoreflect the perceptions of otheragencies involved in coyote damagecontrol.Responses were received from 8 ofthe southeastern states. Six statesindicated that reports had increasedand 2 states indicated that they haddecreased over the last five years.Most of the states indicated thatthey had a few confirmed reports. Theprimary problems were associated withcalves, sheep, and watermelons.Louisiana and Arkansas indicated thatreports have declined. This isprobably due to more familiarity withcoyotes and preventative measuressuch as better livestock husbandrypractices and the use of electricfences to protect melons.Although the values reported arerough estimates, it does indicatethat coyotes are responsible forconsiderable damage in the south-eastern states. Because the coyoteis a relatively recent inhabitantof the Southeast, there is consider-able concern about the impact ofcoyotes on livestock, crops, wildlife,pets, and people. As the populationcontinues to increase, the number ofcomplaints will probably increaseuntil producers learn to use preven-tative measures .320

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&amp;context=ewdcc3

Coyote Damage in the Southeastern United States

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@USU

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska