The strategies and practices to control the actions of or reduce the number of predator animals.
Utah’s Predator Control Program provides:
- The online training course about predator control,
- Coyote check-in locations and times,
- Coyote compensation form,
- A map showing recommended locations for coyote removal.
Livestock and domestic animal protection is another objective of predator control within the SEUALG region. In Utah the primary agent for predator control is the UDWR, which manages predator populations by annually manipulating hunting permits. The UDWR also offers reimbursement for livestock damaged by bear, mountain lion, wolf, and eagle through the Wildlife Damage Compensation Act (23-21-1).
Federal management of predators for livestock protection is run through the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS). The WS assists livestock producers when depredation problems arise, including investigating and documenting predation events. APHIS personnel conduct predator management using firearms, traps, and toxicants if the need arises [4].
Predator control is also employed when necessary to protect threatened and endangered species. In these cases, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) works in conjunction with APHIS.
Locally, predator control is implemented through planning documents and statute. In Carbon County, the county council amended their general plan to identify policies and objectives pertaining to the greater sage-grouse. In this plan, Carbon County identifies predators (corvid, fox, coyote, and raptors) as the greatest threat to greater sage-grouse and supports open hunting and taking by other means of predators [5].
Best management practices (BMPs) for predator control include lethal and nonlethal methods. Nonlethal methods focus on physically separating livestock from predators, employing techniques to repel predators, or disrupting mating and reproductive cycles to reduce the number of predators born each year. Lethal methods seek to reduce predator numbers by killing them.
Nonlethal [6] methods include:
- Fencing
- Calving pens
- Herding and confining livestock
- Guard animals
- Dogs
- Llamas
- Donkeys
- Frightening devices
Lethal methods [7] include:
- Traps and snares
- Shooting
- Fumigants
- Toxicants
The State of Utah provides a $50 bounty for each coyote killed in the state. Participants in coyote removal must follow the training and guidelines provided by the Utah Predator Control Program.
The Surface Ownership and Administration data can be used to help determine which predator control methods are most appropriate in parts of the county.
Losses due to predation can be significant. In 2014 in Utah, 5,200 sheep and 12,100 lambs were killed by predators for a total value loss of nearly $3 million [8]. Coyotes were by far the largest contributor to predation deaths (2,800 sheep and 8,500 lambs), bears were second (1,100 sheep and 1,700 lambs), and mountain lions third (700 sheep and 900 lambs) [8].
Utah cattle are also killed by predators, though not in as many numbers. In 2010 in Utah, 300 head of cattle and 2,300 calves were killed by predators for a total value loss of $1.1 million [9]. Coyotes are responsible for the majority of cattle predation, including 58% of calf losses and 44% of cows. Bears were responsible for 43% of the cow losses [9].
The 2015 summary report of the Utah Predator Control Program gives the following economic considerations [10]. The state believes that the program has been one of the factors that have contributed to the increase in mule deer populations in the state.
Coyotes submitted for payment and compensation paid in 2014 and 2015.
Year | Coyotes Removed | Compensation |
---|---|---|
2015 | 8,192 | $409,600 |
2014 | 7,041 | $352,050 (calculated value) |
Removing predators could increase the number of mule deer fawns that survive [11]. According to the UDWR, “It will likely take several years of implementation of this program before improvements in fawn:doe ratios statewide may become observed and this effect may be more visible in local areas versus statewide” [11].
Data Name | Data Explanation | Publication Date | Spatial Accuracy | Contact |
---|---|---|---|---|
Predator Control Program Map | Shows areas recommended for coyote removal | Unknown | Unknown | Utah Division of Wildlife Resources |
References
- Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Coyote (Canis latrans), Wildlife Notebook Series No. 19.
- Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 2016. “Mule Deer, The Effects of Predators on Mule Deer Herds.” Accessed: 4/28/16.
- Emery County. 2012. Emery County General Plan, Revised.
- US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2010. How WS Works with Livestock Producers.
- Carbon County. Ordinance No. 452, An Ordinance Amending the Carbon County Master Plan and Setting Forth Policies, Needs, Objectives, and Strategies pertaining to the Greater Sage-Grouse in Carbon County.
- Gese, et. al. Utah State University Extension. Undated. Lines of Defense: Coping with Predators in the Rocky Mountain Region.
- Green, Jeffrey S., “Coyotes” (1994). The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Paper 34.
- US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2015.Sheep and Lamb Predator and Nonpredator Death Loss in the United States, 2015.
- US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2011. Cattle Death Loss, 2010.
- Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 2016. “Questions About Utah’s Predator Control Program Hunting.” Accessed: 1/21/16.
- Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. Utah’s Predator Control Program Summary.