Coyote Management 2009

							Name:_____________________________________________________Date:_______




      Critically Thinking about Coyotes: A Dilemma in Wildlife Management

Purpose:
This exercise will allow you to study a real-life situation and learn how the intermingling
of science and values affect management policy.

Background Information:

The Scenario:
         Imagine the fictional city of Meadowburgh, Pennsylvania, with a population of 51,
321 in 2009. The town itself resembles Fairfield quite a bit, except that there is a large
metro park (1,000 acres) in the exact center of town, much like Central Park in NYC.
Recently there has been quite a bit of controversy as two coyotes have found their way
into this park and established a new home for themselves. As you can imagine, some
residents of the town have welcomed the new citizens with open arms, while others are
crying out in fear.
         Why would some people favor the coyotes while others attempt to eradicate them
at all costs? Think about Fairfield- some people love wildlife, while others do not want
to lose little patsy the poodle to the insatiable hunger of the coyotes.
         Individuals on different sides of the issue hold deeply entrenched views and it
appears a no-win situation for wildlife managers. If the coyotes are removed, wildlife
managers would appear to be acquiescing to every human desire at the expense of
biodiversity. It could be viewed as the starting point for then eliminating the seldom seen
poisonous snakes in the park, or even the badgers, bees, wasps and skunks, all of which
are viewed by some as threats to humans.
         On the other hand, if wildlife managers tell the public that having dangerous
wildlife is a price one pays for living next to wild or even semi-wild areas like a metro
park, much of the public would strongly object. In the material below, several major
worldviews are presented. All can be applied to the problem presented to you.
Stewardship View:
        The stewardship view suggests that humans have an ethical responsibility as
managers of the Earth's biodiversity, and should care for the species as good stewards.
        In colonial times, Europeans found abundant land with bounteous wildlife of
assorted variety: some dangerous and others peaceable. The new residents did not
understand the effect of over-harvesting animals. As a result, species like the passenger
pigeon became extinct while other species were extirpated from many parts of their range.
Some species became endangered or threatened. While some of the animals were killed
by hunting, it is actually more important to realize that humans caused the elimination of
many species through habitat destruction. For example, timbering, mining and
agriculture degraded stream water quality for many plants and animals.
        We have come far since colonial times, and today we have learned that the
disturbance of certain predator - prey relationships have diminished biodiversity. (This is
something we have looked into when we looked at the role of certain species in a
community- keystone predators). While suburban and rural families today are concerned
about pets falling prey to coyotes, it is important to note that coyotes and other predatory
species (bobcats, hawks, and owls) have an effect on wild species of animals as well.
This effect can be viewed as good or bad depending on one's views. However, the
sighting of coyotes at many deer carcasses suggests that they may be major factor in
controlling the population sizes of deer in some parts of the country.
        While it may be good to control deer populations, it is also important to note that
an overabundance of predatory species can cause great declines in nesting turkeys, grouse,
and other ground nesting birds. Stocked pheasants and quail no longer stand a chance in
areas of marginal habitat.
        Some professionals do not view the coyote as a critical part of biodiversity and
feel that their population size needs to be reduced by humans. They argue that coyotes
share the characteristics of most invasive species, freely migrating in the absence of a
natural predator to control its population. In addition, as mentioned above, the positive
impact they have on an ecosystem is minimal.
        While some density- dependent factors such as mange and disease appear to have
had a limited effect on coyote populations over the last 30 - 50 years, there does not
appear to be a major control on their sizes. Therefore, these wildlife professionals
suggest that humans must become the default predator, and they believe this can be
accomplished by allowing the hunting of coyotes as common practice.

Biocentric View:
        The Biocentric View suggests that all species have an intrinsic right to survive
and thrive on the Earth. Humans, it is argued, are chiefly responsible for loss in
biodiversity.
        People who live in both suburbia and cities have watched deer and other prey
populations increase in vast numbers over the years. As predators of deer, coyotes have
provided a needed service in controlling deer populations. Culling by a predator species
other than man will tend to make the prey species more robust. Coyotes would tend to
take the young, old, and sick individuals, while humans may cull the best deer due to a
"trophy-hunter" mentality. Therefore predation of deer by coyotes is a good thing.
        Further, many predators are sensitive to urban encroachment that isolates the
small patches of woods that are today's urban forest. Land use changes such as
constructing housing projects and business parks flush the predators out onto dangerous
highways. In opposition to the Stewardship Worldview, people subscribing to this view
argue that it would not only be beneficial to allow the coyotes to exist, but re-introduction
of other predators such as wolves and cougars would help to restore the balance in
ecosystems. Eliminating predator species altogether reduces biodiversity by uncontrolled
over-population of certain prey species, such as white-tailed deer.

Scientific Management View:
        The Scientific Management View states that science alone should determine
wildlife management solutions.
        Predator control has been a significant issue in the United States for hundreds of
years, and a lack of scientific research on the effect of hunting on species has caused
significant destruction to biodiversity. For example:

       -In 1683, in Pennsylvania, one could earn 15 schillings for killing a single wolf.
       -In 1749, squirrels (red and gray) were classified as predators and a bounty of
       three pence a head was offered.
       -In 1885, the "Scalp Act" was created, which increased the bounty list by adding
       weasels, hawks, and all but three species of owls. During the two years after this
       act was passed, it was estimated that 180,000 animals were killed. Two years
       after the Scalp Act was passed, the act was repealed due to the over-harvesting of
       hawks and owls.

        Those who proposed and implemented these early approaches to predator control
did not have the scientific studies that we have today. Aldo Leopold himself believed in
killing predators on sight during his early years with the Forest Service. It wasn't until
later that he developed the ideas that he documented in Game Management and A Sand
County Almanac. The writings and insight from the game commissioners over the years
aided Leopold in understanding the ecological necessity of wolves in controlling deer
populations. Over time, laws concerning predators have been transformed to recognize
ecological relationships and the well being of ecosystems.
        Out of this, the view has been developed that any management strategies for
predators, such as coyotes, should be developed not using politics or personal beliefs, but
rather using solid scientific data about the species. First, the areas should be examined in
terms of a landscape and not as a body determined by a political boundary. It needs to be
determined what the species will need from the landscape as a whole, regardless of
municipal lines. If these coyotes are removed, and if the habitat is good, there are likely
to be other coyotes waiting to take their place.
Some interesting questions to ponder…..
      1.      What are the basic life requirements for the species (coyotes)?
      2.      Has an aggressive public involvement program to educate local property
              owners on the species been implemented?
      3.      What is stopping the coyote population from obtaining sources from outside
              of the park, especially if that food source requires less energy to obtain?
      4.      Will wildlife officials work with property owners to remove readily available
              food sources?
      5.      Has a thorough monitoring program been developed?
      6.      Is there a budget to perform monitoring studies?
      7.      Is there a system to revise and modify management practices (adaptive
              management) based upon data from studies?
      8.      Has there been coordination with the agencies responsible for the species?
      9.      Do predators control prey populations, or do prey populations control
              predator populations?
      10.     Is there evidence to indicate that the limiting factor in deer populations is
              their predators instead of available food quantity, food quality, and road kill
              or disease?
      11.     Are coyotes clever enough to find unexploited food sources without
              assistance and won't they continue to live in human-dominated environments
              like towns and cities?
      12.     How does one distinguish between deer carcasses fed upon by coyotes versus
              those that are eaten by feral dogs?
      13.     Does it make better sense to fence deer out of areas to allow for regeneration
              of native plant species?
      14.     In (sub)urban areas, how much predation on domestic animals will there be?
              Given the coyotes tremendous adaptability, is it unlikely that their fate will be
              linked to a single prey source, such as the white-tailed deer?

Procedure:
        After reading all the material presented to you, and reviewing it with the class,
you will break up into a group of four. Your team will be responsible for developing a
wildlife management plan for coyotes. Each team should review the questions presented
above to generate your management plan. In addition, you should review the material
below regarding the evaluation of sources used during research.
        You will be given one week from today to complete your management plan. You
will be asked, as a group, to present a 7 minute PowerPoint presentation on the topic and
submit a five page policy paper, which will include a statement of decision, rationale for
your decision and procedure for implementation of this plan in Meadowburgh,
Pennsylvania. Teams will perform their own research by using the web links supplied at
the end of this assignment, in addition to any other material you choose. You can
certainly use your text book as an additional resource.
        Certainly in determining how to manage the coyotes, you should consider all
three of the views presented in the background information along with any material
presented in the sources you review. Use the information on the following page as a
guide to understanding how to properly gather materials and review them to the best of
your ability….
Critical Analysis in Environmental Science:
        Scholars define critical thinking "as thinking that explicitly aims at well-founded
judgment and hence utilizes appropriate evaluative standards in the attempt to determine
the true worth, merit, or value or something." (www.criticalthinking.org/schoolstudy.htm)
It follows that asking targeted questions at the proper time, and having the question
answered to your satisfaction, provides you with a sound basis for making a decision.
        To evaluate the validity of the evidence you collect, you should analyze sufficient
information so that all legitimate sides of the topic or controversy are represented. If
you do this by analyzing a scientific paper, the resource you use should be peer reviewed
and replicated. Critical thinking should be used as a tool to assess the quality of another's
research and to improve your own thinking and writing.
        The critical thinker interacts with the material presented, asks the right questions
and decides what is valuable to keep and what information should be dismissed. To
evaluate the validity of the evidence and decide whether an argument is sound and true,
avoid the following traps:

       -biased statements;
       -unsupported inferences;
       -arguments that may contain deceptive statistics, fallacies, unsupported
conclusions, weak evidence or ambiguities.



        When you read material regarding coyote management, you should ask questions
of the material to discover if the information is valid. This is very important in any
research you conduct and authors M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley offer the
following questions fro you to consider as you do this:

       -Do the authors state the values and assumptions on which their argument is based?
       -Is evidence sound- does it appeal to authority, testimonials, empirical evidence?
       -Is there fallacious reasoning?
       -Is this a case of cause and effect or is it a correlation?
       -If it is a cause and effect, can there be more than one cause and is the identified
       cause the correct one?
       -What reasonable conclusions are possible?
       -Is the use of statistics deceptive in this case?
       -Is there information omitted?
       -What is the reasoning? (Browne and Keeley)

       Critically assess source material to make better judgments. This may involve
doing more thorough research. By limiting your research so that all valid views are not
represented, or analyzing a scientific study that has not been replicated or peer reviewed,
and without filtering what is read through critical lenses of questioning, your views can
be biased, unfounded, unsupported, and arguments can be illogical.
       Next you should summarize your view in one or two statements. After doing this,
you should address the following questions to see if your view still makes sense. If it
does not, you should modify your position.
       You should consider the following:

       -Is this the most accurate way to frame the issue?
       -What other information is needed to evaluate the validity of this statement?
       -Is it likely that coyotes will kill pets and / or small children?
       -Are there alternative responses in addition to the three views listed above?
       -Would extracting the coyotes solve any potential problems that may result?
       -What secondary effects are possible / probable should the animals be removed?
       -What is the environmental implication for removing the animals? Leaving the
       animals?
       -What human rights / animal rights issues should be considered?



Evaluation:
       You will be evaluated according to the following aspects. Note: the key aspect of
your grade will be your ability, as a group, to clearly present an argument on how best to
manage the coyotes in Meadowburgh, with sufficient support for your conclusions.

Rubric:

       Summary of Management "Problem"                               10 points      ______

       Clear statement of Management Plan                            20 points      ______

       Sufficient support for your plan (14 questions from assignment)
                                                                  20 points         ______

             Support should include background information on coyotes and their life
             style so that a clear understanding of how their needs relate to your plan is
             exhibited

                                                                     5 points       ______

               Support should also include the needs of the people in Meadowburgh

                                                                     5 points       ______

       Policy Paper is completed and covers the main aspects of the presentation

                                                                     30 points      ______

       All sources are referenced                                    10 points      ______
Additional Resources and References:

This activity has been adapted and modified from Edward Wells (Wilson College).

Background reading for this lab comes from a discussion among the Pennsylvania
Biodiversity Listserve. Discussion over this issue began on 3/22/05 and continued
through 3/27/05. http://www.pabiodiversity.org/listserve.org/listserve.html. “The
Pennsylvania Biodiversity Listserve is intended to promote discussion of biodiversity
issues in the state. It ids moderated by the Pennsylvania Biodiversity Partnership (PBP)
following guidelines posted at httpo://www.pabiodiversity.org/listserve.html. The
opinions expressed in messages are those of the authors and NOT the PBP.”

There is research being done on coyotes on Cape Cod, a highly suburbanized landscape,
some data can be found at http://www2.bc.edu/~wayjo

http://www/mosquitocreeksportsmen.com

The Wildlife Conservation Society, http://www.wes.org (see working paper: “The
Ecology of Northeast Coyotes” for an excellent summary of many of these issues and an
extensive citation list for more information www.desertusa.com/june96/du_cycot.html

www.bright.net/~swopejak/coyote.htm

www.fundwildlife.org/coexist/coyotes.html

www.desertusa.com/june96/du_cycot.html

www.mapsgroup.org/urban_cootes.htm

www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/ag/wildlife/coyotes.html

www.coyoterescue.org/article_urbancoyote.html

www.spca.bc.ca/animalissues/coyotes.asp

Happy managing……..