Spelling suggestions: "subject:"coyote -- control"" "subject:"coyote -- coontrol""
1 |
Relationships between sheep management and coyote predationMeduna, Robert Lee January 2011 (has links)
Typescript. / Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries
|
2 |
Methods of coyote control in KansasGusey, William Franklin. January 1952 (has links)
Call number: LD2668 .T4 1952 G8 / Master of Science
|
3 |
Olfactory discrimination of lithium chloride by the coyote (Canis Latrans)Martin, Glenn Carle 01 January 1979 (has links)
No description available.
|
4 |
Relationships between coyote ecology and sheep management in the Lower Fraser Valley, B.C.Atkinson, Knut Thomas January 1985 (has links)
Domestic sheep farmers in the lower Fraser Valley (L.F.V.) had reported increasing losses of sheep to coyote (Canis latrans) and dog (C. familiaris) predation. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine if management
and geographic factors predispose sheep farms to coyote and dog predation;
(2) to assess the relative impact of coyote and dog predation on the L.F.V. sheep population; (3) to record basic attributes of coyote biology (taxonomy, reproduction, food habits, home range, movements, activity patterns, and predatory behaviour); (4) to provide practical and economical recommendations to reduce or prevent coyote and dog predation on sheep in the L.F.V.
One hundred and twelve sheep farmers were interviewed over three years, 1979 to 1981. Farms which lost sheep to coyotes characteristically had relatively large flocks (>50 ewes) on large fields (4+ ha), did not confine sheep at night, and either buried or left sheep carcasses exposed. There were no common factors among farms which lost sheep to dogs.
Predation accounted for 28.2% of all mortality and 2.4% of the total population sampled. Coyotes killed 69.7% and 74.7% of all ewes and lambs lost to predators. An average of 24.3% of the farms lost sheep to coyotes and dogs each year. However, 55.2% of the farms which lost sheep to coyotes did so in two or three consecutive years compared to 17.4% of farms which lost sheep to dogs.
Coyotes in the L.F.V. were similar in most biological aspects studied to other coyote populations in North America. The only exception was that small rodents, primarily Microtus townsendi composed over 70% (scat volume) of their diet, a proportion higher than in other areas. Domestic livestock (mostly poultry carrion) comprised only 4.3% of the diet, sheep only 0.2%.
I concluded that in the rural-urban L.F.V. interface, prevention of coyote predation (and secondarily dog predation) on hobby farms is largely a matter of management. The most effective and economical solution is to provide predator-proof enclosures for night confinement of sheep because coyotes were most active at night. This method could be further enhanced by removing livestock carcasses off the farm or by burying and liming them to avoid attracting coyotes to the farm vicinity. / Land and Food Systems, Faculty of / Graduate
|
5 |
How to Combat Rabbits, Gophers, Prairie Dogs, Coyotes, Ants, and GrasshoppersPaschall, Arthur L. 15 November 1917 (has links)
This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.
|
Page generated in 0.0364 seconds