DNA tests show it was not a wolf, nor a hybrid — not a coywolf-

Incredible. It’s hard to believe a coyote this size.

Hunter Shoots Unusually Large Coyote in Northwest Missouri. Kansas City InfoZine. By James Low.

Update 12/20/10 Here are the high resolution photos from the Missouri Department of Conservation Press Release:

Big Missouri "coyote" courtesy of Missouri Department of Conservation (click for larger view)

Big Missouri “coyote” courtesy of Missouri Department of Conservation (click for larger view)




About The Author

Ralph Maughan


211 Responses to 104 pound coyote shot in Missouri !!

  1. avatar william huard says:

    And the hunter shot the coyote for what reason? Because it was a coyote and this hunter was doing a good deed as a hunter to rid the planet of this animal. I watched this show on versus yesterday- “Hunting with Benny Spies” This guy is a slob shooter and a complete idiot. He was shooting at prairie dog families just because he was bored and stupid. My question is how do hunters think this is helping their cause as being such great evironmentalists? This guy is an embecile, I wonder how he got his own Hunting show!

    • avatar jon says:

      William, some people just love killing things with their guns. The hunter probably thought it was a wolf and shot it dead and then he can play the “I thought it was a coyote card”. As Paul Watson said and he’s 100% right in my opinion, YOU CAN’T LOVE NATURE WITH A GUN!

      • avatar william huard says:

        I was facinated that VERSUS thinks these “slob shooting shows” is entertainment and that people approve of these actions of these stupid idiots. This Benny Spies gives new meaning to the term “REDNECK”

      • avatar jon says:

        Did you hear about that Colorado hunter who crawled inside a bear’s den and shot it dead? The bear was 703 pounds. I’m sure the hunter killed it because the bear would make a nice big trophy in his trophy room.

      • avatar dave says:

        Can a wolf love nature with his teeth? C’mon Jon. Lots of hunters love nature…. which is not utopia by the way. Death of all kinds is part of it. Ever see a couple of wolves tear a coyote in half for getting too close to a kill? I’m not defending slob hunters, but if you can’t separate them from the good guys, you’re missing something.

      • avatar Phil says:

        Dave: When a Wolf tears into a Coyote to defend its food, that is a defensive survival tactic and not for the joy of it. There is a difference between hunting for a sport by sportsmen and killing to defend what keeps you alive by animals. I am not trying to attack you, but that is reality.

      • avatar dave says:

        Phil, I hear what you’re saying. There is a difference between killing for need and for sport… but the wolves don’t have to kill the coyote. They are not in danger from the coyote, they are not ever going to lose their dinner to an approaching coyote, even if alone. It is excessive force. I’m not advocating the senseless slaughter of animals. Not even remotely. I’m trying to highlight a fallacy that is frequently expressed in Society today, and even here on this blog. By some, like yourself, very reasonably. By others, not so reasonably.

        As humans, our own survival instincts drive us to constantly reduce violence, and drive us to eat. Somehow, the distinction between “wild” and “domesticated” has led lots of otherwise reasonable omnivores to term hunting “barbaric” while buying your food on styrofoam is acceptable. Buying fur and leather, somehow is unacceptable, I guess because we can dress ourselves with petroleum byproducts.

        The prevailing attitude by many on this site is that hunters kill out of blood lust, and that the death inflicted on livestock and other living creatures by suburbanites everywhere is somehow humane, or civilized. Those same individuals, sheltered from the harsh realities of slaughterhouses that provide their t-bone, anthropomorphise animals and predators, and extend to them our obsession with preventing violence and death, even interfering to the level of euthanizing wild animals that are suffering.

        You CAN love nature with a gun. You CAN harvest furbearers and edible species alike responsibly and sustainably and as humanely as you can a pig or a cow. You can do so while maintaining a respect for the animal and the ecosystem around you.

        There is a difference between slob-hunting and wanton destruction and responsible hunting. You don’t have to like hunting, you’re entitled to your opinion. But if one eats any meat at all, and can’t acknowledge the difference, then that individual is a hypocrite. Death is death. Just because you accept that it is part of life does not make you a joyful killer.

        Notice I am not calling you a hypocrite. Just sharing ideas, and it’s okay if we disagree. Merry Christmas everybody.

      • avatar dave says:

        One other quick analogy: we have laws in this country requiring we waste horses by burying them, rather than utilizing the resources in their bodies. Jump over to France and Italy and you can have horse on your dinner plate. Does being willing to use horses as dog food and glues and other products mean you can’t love horses? Or does it just mean you’ve accepted that they will die, and you’re willing not to waste them as a resource when their end arrives?

      • avatar jon says:

        Dave, do you understand what goes on in nature? Predators kill other predators because of competition. It has nothing to do with being afraid or not, the wolves are simply killing other predators they see as competition for food sources.

      • avatar jon says:

        Maintaining “respect” for the animal, wouldn’t it be more respectful to an animal if you let it live, not killed it for fur? Your meaning of respect must be different than mine. You see, respect to me is letting the animal live, not shooting it or trapping it only to be killed. I guess my mom and dad raised me differently when it came to respecting animals. Killing does not equal respect. Hunting for food is another thing. As Paul Watson said, you can’t love nature with a gun, but you are going to feel however you like and there is no changing that. People aren’t always going to feel the same about certain things. That is something most expect.

    • avatar Hilljack says:

      He shot it because it was a coyote and legal to shot. Its not against the law and only idiots like you disagree with it. I would love to see people like you fall off your soap box. I dont like vegetables but don’t see me yelling at vegetarians for eating them. Maybe you should actually do something other than talk trash over the internet. I am a Hunter and I am an Environmentalist. I work 40 hours a week helping wildlife and volunteer countless hours. If I choose to spend my days off hunting coyotes and it is legal thats my choice. If you choose to walk around with a stick wear it doesn’t belong thats yours.

      • avatar Phil says:

        Hilljack: I respect your views, but your hostility is giving hunters a bad name. Many hunters have a similar hostility because they see others as trying to stop them from killing another living form of life. I do not agree with hunting as a sport, but if hunters defend themselves in this manner by using hostility, then what are others going to see you as? I don’t know if you keep hearing this, but I am understanding from other hunters I know and others who do not hunt that the popularity of hunters is decreasing. Would you have any idea as to why that is? I know there are good and bad hunters, but the ones that are avid are always defending their hunting actions. Why?

      • avatar jon says:

        Shooting a coyote has nothing to do with hunting for food. By hunting coyotes, what it shows is that you obviously have a lack of self regard for the coyotes you kill.

      • I agree.

        @Phil: Hunters show hostility because they are sick and tired of you and those with similar feelings criticizing their every move. If someone was on your back about something every day, you’d probably be a little hostile too. The fact is that hunters can’t simply be grouped into one lump sum. There are some hunters who have no respect for the laws, and think it is their God-given right to “blow shit up.” On the other hand, however, there are a number of hunters who hunt for subsistence or, yes, as a sport, but do so in a manner that does not harm the environment. The ones that are irresponsible aren’t the ones on these blogs defending themselves. They’re out spotlighting, baiting, and using other unethical methods. The hunters that are on here are the ones that are defending themselves and their practices every day of their lives, so forgive them if they tire of saying the same thing over and over to people who are just as ignorant about hunting as hunters are about needlepoint. The laws are in place to protect the animals. If coyotes were in danger, they would not be legal to hunt. In many cases, the wildlife managers allow hunters to kill members of a species to help manage the population so that it does not grow beyond its means. If the population was to grow beyond its means, disease and starvation would ravage the population, killing a lot more animals than hunters too.

  2. I think they should re-do their DNA test. The photo with this article doesn’t look like any coyote I have ever seen. It looks very wolf-like.

    • avatar WM says:

      Agreed. Wonder what Jon Way has to say about this.

    • avatar Save bears says:

      I have never seen a coyote that looked like this either, that looks like a wolf profile to me, perhaps a coyote domestic dog cross?

      • avatar SAP says:

        Looks kind of malamute. I would send that DNA somewhere else.

      • avatar anna says:

        So upsetting!! Just because it’s legal to kill coyotes during deer doesn’t mean you should, this animal got blown away for no reason. . and the fact that this guy and all the others who claim they didn’t know if it was a wolf or if it was a grizzly or whatever it may be at the time is bogus crap. If a person cannot tell the difference between species stay out of the wilderness with guns!

    • avatar Rita K.Sharpe says:

      Fom the photo I have seen,it doen’t look like a coyote .

    • avatar Bryanto says:

      I agree,I have never seen a Coyote with that much white in the throat. I suspect it could be a coydog, or even just a dog. Its important that DNA tests be verify by several independent sources, after all its is still a person doing the interpretation, with all their biases and agendas. I even remain skeptical of all this new DNA evidence on everything these days,a lot of it is preliminary and hasn’t been peer reviewed and verify by multiple tests.

    • avatar Kibby says:

      Hear, hear! I’ve seen plenty of wolves and coyotes over the years, and have no trouble telling them apart, even at a distance. So I keep staring at the pic wondering how the DNA could be right. Not just the weight, but the proportions, the coloring…they all say ‘wolf’ to my eyes. DNA tests on Great Lakes wolves have previously indicated that most have a mix of wolf and coyote alleles. Wondering if the tests for this animal only looked at the coyote alleles for some reason…?

  3. avatar Jay says:

    Clearly that is a Canadian coyote, probably brought in by the feds in some black helicopter operation to destroy hunting in good ol’ Missoura.

    • avatar william huard says:

      I heard about that conspiracy! Kenyan socialist operatives enlisted by Van Jones have also contracted with other misunderstood predators to destroy wild game herds all over the US. What will we do? Call the FBI, CIA, NRA, and SCI. Call Sara Palin she will save us!

    • avatar STG says:

      Very funny comment!

  4. avatar Ken Cole says:

    I just updated the post with the photos.

    I don’t think this looks anything like a coyote either. The hair on the ears and the long legs are just not right. I think they need to redo the tests.

    • avatar SAP says:

      Jesus, it looks even more like a malamute! He smoked someone’s sled dog!

      Coloration, muzzle length: not a coyote. not a wolf. Could be wrong, could really be a giant coyote, but something’s not right.

      The feet look really small for a 104# wolf, too. The few wolves I’ve handled, I was always struck by how big their feet were. Makes sense — proportionally bigger feet spread the load out better, and they allow them to travel over snow better, too.

    • avatar Ken Cole says:

      I’d like to see its eyes. It doesn’t strike me as a malamute either. It looks really wolfy to me.

      • avatar Barb Rupers says:

        None of my several sled dogs (mixes with samoyed, malemute, and Siberian husky) were that leggy; and their markings, dark and light, were much more distinct.

        More testing should be on order for this canine.

      • avatar Maska says:

        Likewise, except, as SAP says, for the small feet. Maybe a wolf-dog hybrid after all? Testing by another lab might be in order—maybe the USFWS forensics lab in Ashland, OR.

    • avatar howlcolorado says:


      In my opinion that appears to be a wolf or a wolf-hybrid (crossed with a dog).

      The ears are shorter and curved more like an animal from a cold-weather climate. Heavier winter coat, thicker up around the neck. The eyes would likely provide a clue as to any hybrid origin, but not much else.

      There is something about the teeth and muzzle that look wrong for a coyote. Without actually getting to compare the dental formula, that’s pure speculation however.

      While we know the weight (30lbs heavier than the heaviest known coyote ever found), we don’t know the height. But that animal looks to have quite long legs, with a narrow chest cavity.

      SAP – you thought the paws looked too small. check out the gallery on HOWLColorado (http://howlcolorado.org/wolf-gallery/) I think you will see that at distance with a typical wolf, the paws look pretty much like this animal. Arctic wolves that have paws adapted for snow travel… they can spread apart to be IIRC about 8 inches wide – this doesn’t look (outside of cold-weather ears – which you will note most wolves actually have) to have any arctic wolf in him at all. I think, up close, your perception is that they have massive paws because they do… but it’s tough to judge proportion. Just think of how massive their heads are – when I am playing with puppies, even with as much experience as I have, my hands have to be super fast because even young, they have larger jaws than a fully grown German Shepherd. This guy doesn’t appear to have a massive head in proportion to his body, but up close, and actually touching it, I bet it would feel pretty huge.

      Coyotes are usually a little more uniform in their winter fur length… being generally “fluffier” in appearance. Clearly they are usually significantly smaller, and they have narrow muzzles with large ears. Sort of a fox/wolf mixed together. Coyote aren’t closely related to wolves at all. Though some make that assumption. They have a very different origin and have developed quite differently over time.

      Coloration does not give any real clues. Gray wolves can be black, white, brown, gray, and any combination of them – coyote aren’t quite as varied. The demarkation of colour is one thing that made me think this was a wolf/husky or wolf/malamute mix, but those photos don’t provide sufficient evidence though.

      What does seem HIGHLY unlikely is that this is a pure-blooded coyote (they have been known to successfully breed with dogs and of course wolves). What seems much more likely given that Missouri is not home to wolves, is that this could well have been someone’s pet wolf-hybrid. Though a wolf getting that far wouldn’t be unheard of, it doesn’t seem likely to me.

      Either way, that was a beautiful and healthy looking animal.

      • avatar Phil says:

        howlcolorado: The ears actually look a little longer then that from any type of Wolf. The long legs you mentioned being thin also resemble Coyote like. Wolves have shorter and thicker legs because of the muscle structure they possess, which is why they are so strong in running in deep snow. I do agree though that it could have possibly been a hybrid Wolf mixed in with a domesticated dog. I never thought of the hybrid Wolf perception, I just did not believe that this was a hybrid Wolf or full blooded Wolf, but can see a hybrid Wolf with domestication of a dog.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        We could discuss wolf morphology for a long time. It’s pretty varied. So much so that they were able to identify 24 different gray wolf subspecies. Even today, science agrees that there are 5 different subspecies, not including familiaris.

        Gray wolves have long, lengthy legs. Snow isn’t really a significant concern for wolves. They can handle temperatures down to 40 below, but they aren’t really needing to be highly active in deep snow. Arctics are a little different.

        The build of a wolf is designed for both the gait and the run. A wolf can run at 5 miles an hour or so for a pretty unlimited amount of time. And they can run at 35 miles per hour for shorter bursts.

        I wish we could see the muzzle better. It doesn’t look very narrow to me, but since we can’t see anything other than the front canines and a pretty obscure angle of the front of the face, I don’t think we can draw any conclussions from that at all. It looks wider and more dog-like on the muzzle than the fox-like muzzle you see with coyotes.

        I am still thinking the ears are far closer to wolf than coyote.

        Either way, what I am saying is that this doesn’t look like any kind of coyote, and wolf-hybrid seems to match the best based on what we can see.

      • avatar jon says:

        I agree with howl. It looks like a hybrid, but why are they saying it’s a coyote? Wolf hybrids weigh more than coyotes, so it would make much more sese if this animal was a hybrid given the fact that it weighed more than some of these “canadian” gray wolves. It’s a shame this animal had to die.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        It’s illegal to shoot wolves. The hunter shot the animal stating he believed it to be a coyote. If it proved not to be a coyote, then there is a lot of paperwork, possible charges (though highly unlikely). Also, right now, which state would like to deal with the possibility of having wolves in the current climate (something I am sure Missouri would like to avoid).

        It’s far better to have a monstrous coyote than a wolf. And the DNA testing necessary to determine a wolf hybrid??? That’s tricky stuff based on the tiny sliver of variation and markers they would be looking for.

      • avatar jon says:

        Howl, I believe we are going to see more illegal wolf killings. Some hunters are going to claim they shot wolves because they thought they were coyotes. It is the perfect excuse to getting away with breaking the law if the wolf is protected.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        Of course.

        They can also claim they thought it was a dog. Why shoot a dog? Who cares, it’s not illegal.

        However… ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law, and therefore, if you kill a wolf, whether you believed it was a wolf or not, you should face the charges.

      • avatar Ken Cole says:

        Howl, I think it’s probably a wolf or wolf/dog hybrid that is mostly wolf. I have some photos of a sedated wolf that appear very similar except for the feet which appear much, much larger than this one’s feet do.

        There is one possible explanation for a wolf being there although it seems unlikely. It might have dispersed from the Great Lakes population. In a straight line it is about 450-500 miles from where this wolf was shot. The Swan Lake wolf that was hit near Idaho Springs, CO travelled about 450 miles as the crow flies. It is not unprecedented.

        I’ve seen a lot of wolves over the years, even had a sedated one in my lap in the cab of a pickup years ago, and this looks awfully wolfy to me. I wish there were more and better photos. It’s hard to know for sure based on a picture.

      • avatar WM says:



        Are you now a lawyer, too?

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        I think it’s a wolf/husky or malamute high content wolf-hybrid. There are lots of reasons I say that, most you can find throughout our conversation above.

        I just can’t bring myself to imagine it’s a coyote.

        As far as your comment regarding the possibility of wolf dispersion being a possible explanation, making this a full-blooded wolf (entirely possible).

        500 miles isn’t impossible for a dispersing wolf seeking a mate. As I mentioned, 5 mph for a near unlimited amount of time… that’s 50 miles a day given perfect conditions.

        Colorado wolf advocates have not forgotten about 341F and I assume Ed Bangs still receives a number of FOI requests asking about the progress of that investigation. She travelled a long way to get here.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        Pretty sure I don’t have to be a lawyer to know that not knowing something doesn’t protect you from legal prosecution. But I think I will just let this be one more thing which will continue to cause you to find me so perplexing.

        If you would like to test out the “ignorance defense” in a future encounter with the law to prove me wrong and then report back, I would, for one, be fascinated to see how it turns out for you.

      • avatar WM says:


        Just checking on your skill set. I didn’t feel so confident on your past free legal advices regarding what does or does not constitute protected advocacy or “free speech” in the context of “incitement to action.” So, forewarned is forearmed, as the saying goes.

        In this instance with this “coyote” or whatever it is, where species may be interbreeding, at the fringes of range or in captivity, the resulting creature has characteristics which may not be easily distinguishable. A laboratory genetic determination may be required to ascertain whether it is more one species than another (wolf, coyote, dog or some mix of all), each with a different protection status, I think the legal issues get a bit murky. Prosecution for unintended game violations -the alleged violator’s defense of “mistake” – maybe not be so easy to ignore.

        It creates interesting legal and policy issues that may not have solutions everyone agrees with. Thanks for the opportunity to raise that point. And for the record, I don’t shoot predators, nor particularly care for those who do.

  5. avatar Phil says:

    Two significant features as to it not being a Wolf. First: Look at the muzzle of the “Coyote”. A Wolf’s muzzle is not narrow like a Coyote’s is, and these photos, although from the side, show the muzzle being narrow. It is like a Black and Grizzly Bear. Black Bears have a narrower nose then a Grizzly. Not the only distinguish feature, but a obvious one. Second: Look at the ears. Wolves do not have a round shaped formulation in their ears, and their ears are not sticking out like a Coyote’s is and like the ears in these photos are. I do not believe it to be a fully bred Coyote, but I wouldn’t rule out it being a Coyote mix with a domesticated dog.
    Yes! I would also like to know the reasoning for the hunter to shoot the Coyote hybrid. As some of you said, it was probably because it was not only an animal, but a predator animal, believing they are doing their good deed in riding the planet of anything that is not human like.

  6. avatar Phil says:

    anna: I wonder if they can tell the difference between a male and female human? Wonder if they go to the wrong bathroom at times believing the photo of the stick like figure wearing a dress is actually the mens restroom?

  7. avatar Phil says:

    jon: I had not heard about the Bear being killed inside its den, but that comes to show you just how extremist some hunters will be to earn their kill.

  8. avatar wolf moderate says:

    You just can’t win…You people complain when hunters shoot with rifles, claiming they are weak and would be nothing w/o the mighty “thunder stick”. Then some crazy dude “weewee’d” up (as BO says) and goes into a bear den and kills it at point blank range. Seems pretty brave to me. Also, it seems to me that the hunter must’ve spent much time in the mountains to find a bear den up.

    • avatar jon says:

      Brave? hardly more like cowardly.

      • avatar jon says:

        Here in Maine we got coywolves. They get bigger than regular coyotes. I wonder what this “coyote’ was eating for him to get this big.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        The coywolves don’t even get close to the size that this animal is. Sheep full of human growth hormones perhaps?

      • avatar jon says:

        Howl, please check this link out.


        “This is known as latitudinal cline – as you go north, animals get larger,” National Geographics expert Robert Winkler said.

        From the link,
        “A typical Midwest coyote would weigh 22 to 30 pounds, as opposed to a northeast coyote, which would weigh 32 to 38 pounds. This is a vast difference from the coywolf hybrids, which can range from 60 to 80 pounds for females, and 70 to 110 pounds for males. Of 100 coyotes studied in Maine, 22 were more than half wolf and one was 89 percent wolf.”

      • avatar jon says:

        Howl or others, I have a question for you guys/gals. If a coywolf finds its way into a state where wolves are protected, are coywolves also protected or not? Does an animal have to be 100% wolf to be protected and considered a “true” wolf?

      • avatar howlcolorado says:


        To my knowledge a coywolf is not an officially recognized species.

        Coywolf or wolf hybrid, that’s a problem. The quote you posted said “of 100 coyotes” … 22 were more than half wolf and one was 89% wolf.

        Are those wolves? or coyote?

        If a wolf-hybrid goes into a state where gray wolves are covered by the ESA (like Colorado) the animal would have to be determined to be a gray wolf. Does that wolf have to be 100% wolf to be covered? That’s an excellent question. The answer is: If, scientifically, the animal is determined to be a gray wolf it would be covered. Any form of hybridization could lead to the determination that the animal is not a gray wolf and thus it would not be covered.

        I guess in short, Coywolf would have to be recognized as a species. Then be determined to be an endangered species, and added to the list on it’s own merit. I don’t think a coywolf in an ESA state for wolves would have any form of protection outside of through confusion. It would be a bad thing for wolves, coyote and coywolves however… “I thought it was a coyote”… good luck prosecuting anything.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        “which can range from 60 to 80 pounds for females, and 70 to 110 ” —– If this range is based on % of wolf in the coywolf (something I have never seen a study make a corrolation of) that becomes very confusing. Because at some point the animal is either a coyote-hybrid, a coywolf, or a wolf-hybrid… those demarkations are going to be really challenging to mark, but 89%? That’s a wolf with coyote blood in it if you ask me lol

      • avatar JB says:


        The answer is no. While the taxonomic details regarding “coywolves” are solidifying, it will take policy a while to catch up. That is, if coywolves are ultimately deemed to be a subspecies of C. lupus, then FWS will need to make a listing status determination on that subspecies (this probably won’t take place without a petition to list). In the meantime, from my understanding, there already are areas where gray wolves and these eastern/coywolves overlap; however, since we can’t truly tell them apart simply by their morphology, one would be unwise to shoot at what appears to be a “really big coyote” only to find out later they have killed a young gray wolf.

        I’m not sure if Jon Way is “listening” but he would be able to give us an update on the latest research.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        JB, isn’t some of the confusion related to the fact that a gray wolf subspecies would be treated very differently than a coyote subspecies. I am not sure how they will even be able to solidify that. A coywolf is between 40-60% wolf/coyote? I think for the foreseeable future, while academically, they may reach some form of concensus, a coywolf will be treated more like coyote than wolves just because politically, there are far fewer entanglements associated to the coyote side of the equation.

      • avatar JB says:


        Mech fielded a question about these animals at the Midwest last week, and he suggested that they were probably most properly classified as a separate species. To be frank, while I’m quite comfortable with the literature on wolves behavior and management, I really am the wrong person to ask about their morphology or genetics. Again, I’m hoping Jon Way will weigh in here.

    • avatar Virginia says:

      Another troll making stupid comments about the posters on this story.

  9. avatar Nancy says:

    You’re kidding right wolf m? The bear was hibernating (a condition of biological rest or suspended animation; “dormant buds”; “a hibernating bear”; “torpid frogs” NOTHING brave about what this guy did.

    A few years ago (believe it was in the Carolinas) some low lifes were using radios to to track collared black bears to their dens and kill them for their gall bladders. Big $$ dollars paid for those organs in Asian countries. Their idea of Viagra…………

  10. avatar wolf moderate says:

    For some reason, I thought the story went that he waited 10 hours until the bear went into the den. Once the bear went in the den the hunter entered and killed it. Seems to me (if this is how it went down) that the bear would not be in hiberation so quickly. Either way, I would not enter a bear den when a bear is known to be their. If you miss or just wound the bear you are gonna have some serious issues on yer hands.

    Dang Chinese keep killing chit for they junk. I guess they haven’t heard of viagra.

    • avatar Phil says:

      wolf moderate: It could have been the beginning stages of hibernation from the Bear. How do you think Bears hibernate? Do they just all of the sudden collapse and fall to the ground? They need to walk into their den and eventually fall into hibernation stages. The hunter waited 5 hours for the Bear to come out, or so he says. No matter how long, if the Bear was fully awake he/she would have smelled another unfamiliar scent in the den and attacked, which futher illustrates beginning of hibernation.

      • avatar wolf moderate says:

        Beginning stages of hibernation or not, it was pretty crazy thig to do is my point. It most definately is not cowardly. Cowardly would have been for him to sit over 10 day old donuts or treeing the bear with dogs. Sorry but it is quite impressive to sneak into a den where u know a bear has just gone into (in my opinion).

        We will have to agree to disagree. No big deal.

      • avatar jon says:

        If a human did this to another human, it would be called murder and most would think of it as a cowardly act.

      • avatar howlcolorado says:

        It was cowardly. I don’t think you can deny it. Entering the den with a gun drawn and ready to fire… Nothing a bear would do in response to that invasion would prevent the hunter from firing a lethal shot.

        Stupid, yes. Cruel, yes. and Cowardly, yes. I can’t believe any ethical hunter on this blog who participates in fair chase hunts would consider this ethical OR fair chase.

  11. avatar Nancy says:

    No apology necessary Jon. I had a knee jerk reaction to the story because there are so many sad stories (and excuses) out there when it comes to the defination of fair chase. Nothing appeared to be “fair” about this.

    Not a human court in this land that would consider this fair or right, if this guy had shot me while I was sleeping, whether it had been 5 or 10 hours later and that’s the difference between the human species and our arrogance over the taking of other species.

    • avatar jon says:

      Agreed Nancy. If someone went into another person’s home and shot them, most would agree this would be a cowardly act. I guess some just think killing animals with a gun takes a brave person to do it.

  12. avatar Phil says:

    I am not to familiar with domesticated dogs in the Middle East or surrounding areas, but if you look at the fascial patterns and ears, they do resemble dogs in the Middle East or somewhere there abouts. I know the climate in the Middle East is warm and this “Coyote” has longer fur indicating colder climates, but could a dog native of another country have bred with a Coyote and given birth to this hybrid? Maybe people owned a dog native to another country in Missouri, or surrounding states, and decided they did not want the dog any more and the dog became a stray and mated with a Coyote? Just a suggestion on my part.

    • avatar dave says:

      Phil, I think the answer to your question is no, if you suppose this happened in the wild. A lot of the research out east has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest Wolf-dog or coyote-dog hybrids in the wild. Apparently, their menstrual cycles don’t line up, so it can only happen in captivity. Wolf-coyote on the other hand is well-documented. I’ll look for a link, but that’s the way I understand it…

      • avatar Phil says:

        Menstrual cycles do not line up? I though domesticated dogs cycles are rear round?

      • avatar dave says:

        Phil – a female dog goes into heat anywhere from 3-6 times a year… where she is fertile for 6-9 days. A coyote’s sperm count is low 10 months of the year. So the female must go into heat at the right time, which as I understand it, is statistically improbable. I suppose it could go the other way, where a male dog impregnates a female coyote. But for that to happen, the coyote social structure usually has to be stressed. I don’t know. Jon Way is the expert. We should ask him.

  13. avatar Craig says:

    I’ve seen thousands of Coyotes over the years and not one looked anything like that! That has to be a cross bred some how.

  14. avatar howlcolorado says:

    Remember, the “wolf” killed in Ohio was a wolf-hybrid too. When something in nature seems to amazing to be true, it’s usually the most likely that the answer comes from somewhere other than nature.

    The DNA results came back remarkably quickly…

    • avatar Carl says:

      I am amazed that so many of you are not going with the science this time around. Do you only believe in science when it suits you? Our we supposed to believe those of you who are looking at a couple of photos over the DNA tests? If you don’t believe these DNA tests why do you believe the ones coming out of the Northeast about Coywolves?

      • avatar jon says:

        Hi Carl, some people just strongly believe that that animal does not look like a coyote. I personally believe it’s a coywolf despite what the science says. Are we not allow to have our own opinions despite what science may say? To me, that animal looks nothing like a coyote. I never heard of a 100 pound coyote, but coydogs do get this big. If you read the different comments on different websites about this story, you would see that many people are questioning whether that is really a coyote or not because in some people’s eyes, it looks nothing like a coyote. Looks much more like a wolf.

      • avatar Carl says:

        Hi Jon, On a couple of other sites I have read people are also saying it is a wolf or a coywolf. They claim that this picture proves how wide spread wolves are and that the biologists are only calling it a coyote because they don’t want to have the wolf remain protected as an endangered species. I agree that it doesn’t look like a coyote but I will go with the DNA saying it is a coyote until it can be proved that the DNA was falsified.

      • avatar Craig says:

        Been around 100s of dead Coyotes my friends have shot not 1 ever looked anything like that, not even close!!!!!

  15. avatar John Glowa says:

    If I’m not mistaken, the McKittrick Decision essentially rendered the USFWS impotent in wolf killing cases where the killer claimed he thought the animal was a coyote. In this case, it is obvious that the killer knew what to say and when to say it. There is no way in hell than anyone could mistake a 104 lb. canid for a coyote. The article doesn’t say where the DNA work was done, but it should be re-done in one or more other labs. I would recommend that it be done in Canada where there is no legal or political pressure to interpret the results one way or the other. This kind of nonsense has occurred here in the northeast. Wolf advocates in Missouri and the mid-west should request copies of the DNA report/morphological examination and samples from the animal for independent DNA verification.

    • avatar jon says:

      As I said before, you are going to have hunters purposely shoot wolves and claim they thought it was a coyote. These scumbags know no bounds. The sad thing is, they will most likely get off too.

      • avatar Phil says:

        jon: I wonder if those same individuals would be able to distinguish the difference between a Deer and an Elk? Or, a Grizzly Bear and a Black Bear?

  16. avatar Jon Way says:

    Thanks JB and WM for waiting for my response…
    yes, I think that that is bogus to consider it a coyote. I published a paper on a monstrous 55 lb female eastern coyote or coywolf and that was the heaviest female by far – so there is no way that a male is almost twice that 55 lbers size…
    I believe it is an eastern wolf. Some labs still don’t recognize them as wolves and instead call them coyotes or coyote x wolf hybrids but the eastern wolf is still living in parts of Minnesota and likely it came from there (by the way, most of the Great Lakes states have Gray x Eastern Wolf hybrids, not pure Gray wolves).
    So, yes the issue is confusing. By the way, the coywolf (also called eastern coyote) in the Northeast is genetically and morphologically distinct. I am working with colleagues to further consider its taxonomy after publishing this paper on them:

    I personally don’t like the term “coyote” or “eastern coyote” for the hybrids living here in the Northeast.

    • avatar william huard says:

      If this animal is definately not a coyote this hunter should be charged. Maybe a few prosecutions will render the “I thought it was a coyote” excuse to be the bogus excuse that it is. Is it me or should hunters not shoot until they are sure what they are shooting at? That would take common sense though. Common sense is in short supply when all you are thinking about is killing something!

      • avatar Ken Cole says:

        Yes, hunters should not shoot unless they know what they are shooting at, but this one is a lost cause for prosecution since the defendant would undoubtably use the genetic tests that say it was a coyote to bolster their defense.

        What would you charge them with? Shooting something? Here we are arguing about what it is and none of us really know, except we question whether it is a coyote.

      • avatar WM says:


        You reinforce a point I made earlier to howl, which is reposted here:

        “In this instance with this “coyote” or whatever it is, where species may be interbreeding, at the fringes of range or in captivity, the resulting creature has characteristics which may not be easily distinguishable. A laboratory genetic determination {after the fact} may be required to ascertain whether it is more one species than another (wolf, coyote, dog or some mix of all), each with a different legal protection status, I think the legal issues get a bit murky. Prosecution for unintended game violations -the alleged violator’s defense of “mistake” – maybe not be so easy to ignore.


    • avatar jon says:

      Jon Way, you may have answered this already on here, I’m not sure, but is there any possibility at all this could be a coywolf? I know coywolves can reach 100 plus pounds. Here in Maine we have them and they get a lot bigger than your typical regular coyote.

      • avatar william huard says:

        I’ve seen plenty of both wolves and coyotes, I am surprised the DNA comes back as a coyote. Jon Way- the average coyote would be what 30-40 pounds? If this is a wolf hybrid is there any way to tell the breed that the wolf mated with?

      • avatar Jon Way says:

        no they can’t be. western coyotes average 20-30 lbs, eastern coyotes or coywolves average 30-40 but can weigh into the 50s. Remember the eastern coyote or coywolf is a coyote x red or eastern wolf (not gray wolf) hybrid. Eastern wolves themselves average only 60 lbs so 2 things are relevant:
        1. Eastern coyotes or coywolves are really intermediate between western coyotes and eastern/red wolves. Hence why I don’t like the term “eastern coyote”.
        2. A 100 lb eastern wolf would be huge and would likely have gray wolf genes in there, so I don’t want to eat crow, but I would say there is no possibility a coywolf could reach 100 lbs.

        A side note: there is still no documentation of coyotes and gray wolves hybridizing in the wild. All of the old studies that claim that have been retorted by others saying that the “coyote” genes are really “eastern wolf” genes. For instance, this paper:
        Lehman et al. 1991. Introgression of coyote mitochondrial DNA into sympatric North American gray wolf populations

        This paper has been countered by many saying that those coyote genes are really eastern/red wolf genes:
        Wheeldon, T., B. Patterson, and B. White. 2010. Colonization history and ancestry of northeastern coyotes. Biology Letters 6:246-247. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0822.

        Wheeldon, T., B.R. Patterson, and B.N. White. 2010. Sympatric wolf and coyote population of the western Great Lakes region are reproductively isolated. In Press. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04818.x.

        Mech, L.D. 2010. What is the taxonomic identity of Minnesota wolves? Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:129-138.

        Fain, S.R., D. J. Straughan, and B.F. Taylor. 2010. Genetic outcomes of wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes states. Conservation Genetics 11(5):1747-1765. doi: 10.1007/s10592-010-0068-x.

      • avatar jon says:

        Hi Jon Way, I was talking about coywolves. Check this link out. It talks about coywolves and mention their weights.


        From the article,


        Any thoughts?

  17. avatar Phil says:

    ken: “Hunters should not shoot unless they know what they are shooting at” Kind of like the “slob hunter” article, right? Although they knew what they were shooting at, they did not know who they were shooting at.

    • avatar jon says:

      The thing is some know what they are shooting at and if they see a wolf, they most likely know it’s a wolf, but are going to shoot it anyways because they hate wolves and than claim they thought it was a coyote. This is the perfect way to avoid being fined and thrown in jail for killing a wolf.

  18. avatar wolf moderate says:


    If someone shoots a wolf in a state where wolves reside he/she will more than likely be prosecuted. From what I have searched, the last wolf in Missouri was in 2001. The wolf was from Michigan.

    If a hunter shoots a grizzly in California thinking it’s a black bear I would not fault the hunter. Grizzlies have been extinct from the state for decades. PS: Black bears come in many colors just to beat you to the punch 🙂

    • avatar Phil says:

      As a hunter, you should know the difference between a Grizzly and Black Bear. But, if it came out that the hunter knew it was a Grizzly and hid behind the excuse that he/she thought it was a Black Bear, would you blame them then?

      • avatar Ryan says:


        Why should one know the difference if they are hunting in a place where no grizzlies live or are thought to live? Decisions have to be made in a short time frame when your hunting, I can guarantee when I hunt bears in the cascades of oregon, there has never been a consideration of whether or not its a gizzly. When I hunted in Alaska it was a completely different story…

      • avatar Elk275 says:


        I Montana you have to take a test a grizzly/black bear test before you can hunt black bears.

      • avatar WM says:


        I don’t hunt bears, but have done the training and taken the MTGFP test (years ago).

        Anyone who spends much time in the backcountry where griz are present should do so, since their behavior is so much different from a black bear, and the consequence of reading the wrong species of bear can have consequences. Anyone can do the test online. I am pretty sure this is the same test I took, although they may have changed some of the pictures (some were kind of ambiguous if I recall).


      • avatar WM says:

        sorry should read “… and the consequences of reading the wrong species of bear can be …serious”

      • avatar SEAK Mossback says:

        There is enough overlap in features of brown and black bears that sometimes it is harder to tell than you would think. Last summer, a Tlingit totem pole carver who lives on the north end of this island sent out some photos he took of a bear in his back yard. When I saw the first one taken front-on, I thought brown bear for sure based on the classic dished face and upturned nose instead of the roman nose more common to a black bear. The color seemed perfect for a common brown bear phase here — very dark brown but not black. Then he sent a second photo of the bear standing on one of the poles he was working on, more from the side — absolutely no hump and also the snout seemed just a little narrower than I would expect on a brown bear. Unfortunately, you couldn’t see the feet well in either photo as the claws would be more definitive. I think it was a black bear as does a friend who saw it pass through his yard in the same area, but a former bear biologist who has moved up in the bureaucracy pronounced it a brown bear. Black bears are common on the island while a brown bear would be unusual, although they have occasionally turned up but not for decades.

        The opposite situation occurred some years ago on Chichagof Island when a guy I work with brought back photos of a bear standing with its paws up on a tree that he seemed sure was a black bear. The color was very dark brown, almost black. Chichagof is considered exclusively brown bear country (very high density) and it would be a long swim for a black bear to get there, although a number of moose have made the crossing from the mainland (at least one that tried was observed intercepted and rapidly consumed by killer whales). As he watched, the bear shinnied right up the tree. I’m pretty certain that one was a brown bear, as younger ones have some ability to climb, but wouldn’t bet a huge amount on the identity of either bear. I’ve shown both sets of photos to a researcher who has undoubtedly handled more brown bears than anyone on the planet, and a fair number of black bears as well, and even he was not 100% committal on either one.

  19. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Is this a Canadian coyote? It looks a little wolf-like.

    • I have photographed coyotes and wolves from Alaska to Arizona and this doesn’t look like any coyote from any of those locations. The coyotes I saw in Alberta and the Yukon looked very much like coyotes from Yellowstone, only heavier furred.
      It doesn’t quite look like any of the wolves I have seen either, but I have seen wolves in Alaska and Wyoming with similar facial coloring. The feet on this animal are larger than they appear in the photo since wolves only spread their toes out as they place them on the ground.
      I would suggest that this animal is a domesticated wolf/dog cross that escaped or someone turned loose.

      • avatar ProWolf in WY says:

        I was being a bit sarcastic. It seems like a freakishly large coyote and since Canada apparently has freakishly large wolves I figured this one must be Canadian. I thought it looked like a coywolf.

  20. avatar Jon Way says:

    I have mentioned this before but I really think there needs to be some kind of Canid Act to better enforce the slaughter of coyotes, esp. with regard to mistaken wolves:

    I am not saying that no hunting of canids should take place but the reckless slaughter (ie, I am in a treestand and see a coyote – which really is a wolf – so I should shoot it) is something that is less than desirable and makes hunters themselves look bad and extreme. To me, much of it is about hate as much as anything else and wildlife (incl. predators) should not be managed like that.

  21. avatar Phil says:

    dave: I love Coyotes, but what do Coyotes do besides hunting for their food? They scavenge what they don’t hunt when they eat, right? Wolves know this. When a Wolf attacks a Coyote and kills it, it is because they know that the Coyote will eventually scavenge on the carcass when the Wolves leave, right? Do you believe that the Wolves will come back to the carcass later on? It is a storage purpose whatever the do not eat, and by killing the Coyote, they maintain assurance the Coyote will not eat the carcass when the Wolves have had their share.
    Also, dave; what is the purpose of killing a horse to waste it in the first place? I am referring to wild horses/mustangs. I am not a vet, but understand putting down a horse that has complications with any of its feet, but to kill in reducing the already small population?

    • avatar dave says:

      Phil, I love coyotes too. I have no plans to shoot one. Never have. I understand the concept of protecting a food source. I also understand that nature is NOT solely run on imperative, and compassion is not part of the predator/prey dialogue.

      The horse comment refers to I believe the Companion Animal Act. As i understand it, it has put burdens on ranchers and farmers, who used to recoup some of the costs of caring for a horse at the end of its life by sending them to slaughter houses. Humans are so unable to accept death we isolate ourselves (and by extension, the animals we feel “connected” to) from it as much as possible. Meanwhile, elsewhere, civilized nations eat the animals we consider pets. Should we villainize the Italians over this? Or the Japanese over whaling?

      My point is… it is very important to keep an open mind when dealing with people, especially those on the other side of a polarizing issue like hunting. The whole question of what is ETHICAL (eg can we eat horses? whales?) is a very relativistic subject. I didn’t make this point to combat your views, Phil, but rather some of the less civil posting here. There’s an awful lot of hunter-bashing comments in this thread. We only hurt ourselves when we harden our position against the “others”. You win people over with thoughtful dialogue, not criticism and attacks.

      Thanks to all you civil and more-informed than I that make reading this blog so worthwhile. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays.

      • avatar Phil says:

        dave: I am strong against hunting for a sport, especially when hunting is in the form of trying to eliminate predators who compete for their survival, but I accept that there are people out there who hunt for a sport. There is nothing I can do about it because it is their choice. The only ones that people should feel sorry for are the animals that are killed. I am in favor for any culture or society that hunts for their survival, like tribes in North America and Africa. Just look at the Wolf issue. Anti-wolf hunters are using many fabrications against the Wolf because of the direct competition they are to hunters in hunting.

      • avatar Phil says:

        dave: It goes both ways. There is a lot of bashing by hunters towards others who are against hunting and vegetarians. Check out youtube videos. Youtube is the gateway for a large population of hunters. I once posted a Cougar video with some information on the species. A week later I recieved 8 threatening emails from 8 different hunters.

  22. avatar dave says:

    I guess that’s been my point all along. We shouldn’t “feel sorry” for the individuals. Nature doesn’t. Compassion is a human concept.

    And we shouldn’t allow ourselves to derail informed discussion on subjects just because they did it on youtube.

    • avatar Phil says:

      dave: You are right in that nature doesn’t feel sorry for the individual animals, because it regulates the population for the species benefit. But, to kill for a sport on something that is innocent is a completely different story for humans who are “suppose” to be ethical. Again: I don’t agree with hunting for a sport, but if that is the individual’s choice, so then be it. But, no one should ever complain about a hunter being attacked by an animal. Should we feel sorry for the hunters in this case?

      • avatar Elk275 says:


        I a biologist is attacked by a grizzly should we fell sorry for them? A human is a human.

      • avatar Nancy says:


        So then be it Phil?

        I have no problem calling a “spade a spade” Hunting for sport (giggles and thrills at the local watering hole, comparing the length) in order to hang an animal or its head or hide on your wall, is not my idea (nor will it ever be) my idea of ethical hunting.

        Hunting for food? Can certainly relate and respect that, but too many hunters kill with little respect for the animal they take because its all about the size and bragging rights.

      • avatar Ryan says:


        Don’t anthropromorphize animals they are neither innocent or guilty.


        I guess I fall in a quandry here, I make no bones about it, I like to hunt and kill mature animals, I enjoy the challenge and time spent studying my quarry, at the same time I truly enjoy the meat in the freezer and knowing where it comes from. It seems to be cheaper than beef from the store (atleast thats what I tell my wife 🙂 ). I fill my tags almost every year on mature animals, I wouldn’t trade the 40+ days a year I spend in the hunting and scouting and the expiriences I get for anything, whether or not I am successful.

  23. avatar Phil says:

    Ryan: I did not say anything about hunting in California where there are no Grizzly Bears. As a hunter with a rifle, you should have basic understanding on different species. A Grizzly Bear is, on an average just in size alone, different then a Black Bear. Look at the nose region and tell me there is no difference between the two. To go out and hunt a Black Bear in, let’s say the Yellowstone Region, you should have complete knowledge in distinguishing the difference between the two.

    • avatar Ryan says:


      I’ve seen more bears than 99% of the US population and I can tell the difference immediately. (I spent 2 summers guiding fishermen on the alaskan peninsula) My point was your comments above about how someone in Missouri, who has never seen a wolf or even considered having one in their state, should be aware that it was wolf like is an unfair observation.

  24. avatar Phil says:

    Elk: Thanks for the information. My comment is that as a hunter you should know the difference referring to an example someone else gave of mistakenly killing a Grizzly Bear thinking it was a Black Bear. I am sure many hunters will use this excuse.

  25. avatar Phil says:

    Elk: It is different when you put in the word “Biologist”, because a Biologist is not there to do any harm to the animal in regards to research. I would not feel sorry if a hunter who is out hunting a Deer gets attacked by the Deer.

  26. avatar PointsWest says:

    Is it OK to catch fish or is this bad too?

    • avatar Nancy says:

      PW – Happy Holidays! From what I’ve been able to gather, Its okay to catch fish, but you have to release them.

      • avatar PointsWest says:

        What if they swallow the hook and you pull half their guts our through their mouths with your big evil he-man hook while reeling them in? Are you telling me that pulling an inoncent creature’s guts out though its mouth is OK? Maybe we should take some fihermen, stick a hook down their throats, pull thier guts out through their mouths, and see how they like it!!!!

        Merry Xmas! Jesus loves you everybody! 🙂

  27. avatar Mtn Mama says:

    I’m late to the party on this but we can end the speculation for now. I emailed Jeff Beringer , Resource Scientist with the Missouri Dep. of Conservation, about the animal and this was his response;
    · Early test results showed coyote DNA was present in the sampled animal
    ·Follow up tests are planned using DNA from wolves from nearby great lake states to see if their wolves also have coyote DNA
    ·It is possible for this animal to be a wolf or wolf hybrid and carry coyote DNA

  28. avatar John Glowa says:

    Thanks Mtn Mama. Shame on the MDC for the misleading report about the animal. The false/misleading spin does not surprise me. Sure, it had some coyote DNA-but does that make it a coyote? I have no doubt that it also had wolf DNA. Although there’s no evidence that gray wolves have interbred with pure coyotes in the wild, there’s ample evidence that gray wolves have interbred with eastern wolves and/or coywolves. The two Maine wolves had primarily gray wolf DNA (@ 65%) with lesser amounts of eastern wolf (@ 30%) and coyote (5%). I expect that’s what will be found when this animal is thoroughly tested.

    • avatar Save bears says:


      Anyone with half a brain that has spent anytime in the wilds, would question the identification of this animal!

    • avatar Jon Way says:

      Based on that new website link that Ken posted:
      1. I further question it being a coyote;
      2. I question if it was 104 lbs. Unless that guy is a body builder I doubt he could hold up 104 lbs like that.
      Thanks for the link, Ken!

    • avatar Nancy says:

      The sh-t eaten grins over killing this animal is why I have little respect for many people who refer to themselves as “hunters” and no, thats not a coyote. You’d think someone in that group would of realized that.

  29. avatar vickif says:

    Not that this applies, but a few weeks ago my cousin shot a coyote here in CO that was badly infested with mange. DOW isn’t acknowledging there is an issue, or atleast haven’t to my knowledge. But there is. CO is a “fat coyote” state. We have very well fed coyotes here, due to the explosion of rodents in recent years. Coyotes are really quite a frequent cite, I see them almost daily. Mange could be a far bigger problem here if left unattended.

  30. avatar vickif says:

    Okay, I wan’t going to get into the debate above but now I cannot refrain.
    Coyotes are not your average animal. It is a very adaptive species. It is so adaptive that it has began capitalizing on human ignorance-namely their trash and the rodents driven into compact areas and thriving due to human encroachment, and because they eat what? Our trash.

    Coyotes, wolves and people do not hunt for the same reasons. People in the USA hunt for sport, not the instinct to survive.

    Now, why do people hunt coyotes? The same reason most people use mouse traps. It is a necessity. Not every where, but in some states. Yes people hunt for pleasure. But in the case of coyotes in sme states, it is to the coyote’s advantage. Which is not to compare it to wolves, or elk, or deer….come on, it doesn’t take a genius to see that ALL wildlife is in need of management based on species conservation. I am quite certain that in Missouri, there is no cause to consider the coyote threatened.

    I hunt, I fish, I hike, I camp….and people just like me pay to conserve and promote the wellness of wildlife and their habitat, and any anti-hunting person who doesn’t like that needs to put their money where their heart is, like we (hunters and anglers) do.

    When the anti-hunting ranks who see hunting as cruel, contribute as much revenues as hunters do…. then their voice will be recognized.

    But let’s all be honest here, if you just let the animals be animals, in a world totally monopolized by people, soon their will be an even crueler fate for the animals than a bullet! There will be starvation, and CWD, and there will be distemper, mange, parvo, plague, rabies. It will happen to coyotes, it will happen to deer, it will happen to your neighbor’s poodle.

    UH! The single biggest obstacle that the environment has is people’s ability to acknowledge the uncomfortable reality of the truth! We let ourselves destroy natural balance, now it is up to us to restore it, or lose the environment’s health entirely!

    This isn’t hunting vs. PETA for crying out loud! This is science vs. sentiment.

    • avatar william huard says:

      I don’t understand your logic, since when is killing coyotes for sport good for them? Coyotes are the most persecuted animal in the US. As far as the antis contributing more to wildlife management we are working on that now. I hope the hunters are prepared to give up their stranglehold that they have over wildlife management agencies- because that is coming!

      • avatar Salle says:

        How about human management? We are the problem…

        And I think that if you add up all the $$ that goes into fighting stupid anti-wildlife/anti-environmental health policy and practice, I think it could easily add up to more than the hunt/fish crowd pay into state (anti)wildlife agencies with their license fees and equipment (or whatever you call it) taxes. Not to mention, federal tax $$s (paid by all of us) pay for most agency activities whether state or fed. Come to think of it, as clearly outlined in Wolfer, the costs for all that WS killing with helicopters, etc. is mostly covered by the taxpayers of America, most of whom don’t hunt, fish or farm.

        And I think it’s a toss up as to whether coyotes or wolves are the most persecuted animals in the US.

      • avatar jon says:

        It’s all about money. That is the kinda world we live in. Why must peta be brought into every single conversation that pertains to wildlife? Put your money where your heart is like us hunters and anglers do. You only do this because you have no choice. If you didn’t pay, you’d be breaking the law and labeled a poacher. Hunters and anglers want to conserve animals so they can be shot. it’s that simple. “Anti-hunters” are not entirely anti-hunting, most of us are against sport hunting of predators. To kill a wild animal just for sport shows you have no compassion or respect for that animal’s life. It’s also makes you sick in my book. I doubt god would want you killing wild animals for sport. What it comes down to is some just love killing living things with their guns. Hunting was much more about food purposes back then, but now it’s grown into a cowardly sport where some just love killing living beings with their high powered weapons.

      • avatar vickif says:

        William huard,
        Have you even seen a coyote eat a coyote? I have, it usually occurs due to starvation. That occurs when over population occurs. Have you ever shot one that was hit by a car and lay dying on the road? I have, because someone else didn’t have ‘the heart’ to do it.
        You can say you are working on it all you like, I say to you “go for it”. Once you have that much money, maybe you can figure outhow to displace the millions of Americans who now live in the habitat that will be required to sustain the population surges of animals who are not managed.

        Read a bit more on the subject of animal adaptation, and on over population. Figure out how you will control all that without hunting, tell me how more humane you think you could be.




        Over population of ANY species causes many species to suffer. From mice, to coyotes, to deer, to people.

        Look, you are entitled to your opinion, and that is fine. I disagree based on the facts which I hold to be self evident. I personally and ethically believe it is far crueler to watch an animal suffer , than to shoot one.

        You may not see my logic (it isn’t all that complicated to figure out why population control is more humane than suffering animals). I am sure some other folks will.

        For reference….I am not a proponent of ALL hunting, I am a proponent of scientifically based, need oriented hunting.

      • avatar jon says:

        Wild animals have been dying slow and inhumane deaths for millions and millions of years WAY before guns were created. It is natural. it’s not pretty, but it’s natural. Shooting a coyote that was hit by a car and slowly dying is one thing, but shooting a healthy coyote for sport is another thing. As for “overpopulation”, that is an excuse some use to justify them killing animals with their guns. What is mind boggling to me, is some are more concerned with there being too many wild animals rather than their own species. Just saying…..

      • avatar WM says:



        …but those taxpayers do all eat US agricultural products. And, if I am not mistaken, most of the WS (a part of USDA) overall budget goes to agricultural related services, which includes work on endangered species performed at the request of states or indirectly for the farming/livestock industry, again arguably for the food consuming public.

        WS services include rodent, predator (coyote, skunk, fox, racoon, wolf), invasive species, and bird/aviation safety, and wildlife borne disease control. As a whole, the amount spent on wolves is very, very small compared to the total burden on taxpayers. That paragraph likely didn’t make it into the book.

      • avatar JB says:

        WM, Salle:

        Ideally, we (society) would judge such government programs based not only on their costs and benefits, but also on who benefits. Programs are most useful when costs are low, benefits are high, AND the benefits are accrued by many people. I think (hope?) we can all agree that eliminating Canada geese nesting around airports and dropping rabies vaccines for raccoons are good uses of taxpayers dollars that potentially benefit many people (both are done by USDA-WS). However, given the current obesity epidemic, the costs involved in producing and protecting livestock on high-altitude, semi-arid landscapes, and the fact that the benefits of such practices are accrued by very few people, I also think it is appropriate to question whether programs that support this type of agriculture are a good use of taxpayer resources.

      • avatar WM says:


        I agree. Let’s regulate the agricultural products industry – for the obesity issue – beginning with the folks at Frito-Lay. No more oil laden potato and corn chips with 50% fat. Or, the meat processors who slip in a little extra fat in the burger. A quick regulation (extremely low cost with very high benefit) on those and other snack items to prohibit more people from having access to high fat foods, than a few thousand free range beef, in my opinon.

        Then there are the politics of it all…….

      • avatar Salle says:


        I do understand that WS has programs other than killing wolves but I would counter that what is deemed “problem” animals are simply a result of the overpopulation of humans and encroachment. Sure diseases occur in many species/places but I am certain that disease is nature’s way of telling us that something is off balance, needing correction – which I would prefer be left to nature.

        I think that the purported benefits, regardless of who claims them, are overstated/overrated and that more effort should be put into managing human population whether some cultures or religions like it or not. Survival of the species is everybody’s business but none of us want to do anything substantial in that direction due to our perception of our rights. That is a problem and I don’t know what the answer is – probably something that most folks would oppose like some major depopulating event taht we have no control over.

        I would also argue that a number of our “management” policies, practices and agencies were ill-conceived at best. By this I mean that they were devised during a time when science was minimally applied/consulted and humans were blindly marching into habitat consumption at alarming rates by current standards. Not until their purpose (agencies that deny scientific evidence for the sake of continuing on with impunity) and such conditions as habitat loss are met with open eyes and minimal cover-up (politically) will the problem be addressed appropriately.

        I think “mother nature” will have the last laugh after all. Until all people (especially in the US and other developed nations) admit that they are the problem for all other life-forms and do something significant about it, natural disasters will likely be the norm, many of them contributing to the depopulation of humans that the biosphere desperately needs… for the sake of all other life-forms that is. Major extinctions of other species, flora and fauna, would be the real cost.

        Otherwise, I agree with your comments.

        (off topic but, I noticed that your timely study on public perceptions of wolves and delisting from the ESA has been posted on numerous science-based web sites. I think that’s awesome. Thanks again for conducting this research.)

    • avatar Jay says:

      the ol’ “we hunters are the only people that care enough to fund wildlife” argument. What a crock–lots of folks that don’t hunt put money into conservation–ever heard of the nature conservancy?

      • avatar vickif says:

        I don’t recall having made that arguement. Nor did I see it made by anyone else. You are the person who is the black and white, my way or the highway guy here. I never believed for one second that only hunters care about nature.

    • avatar vickif says:

      That is crap. I seriously laugh at the idea that you think all hunters do it with no regard to what or where they hunt!
      I would promote conservation regardless of if I hunted or not, in fact I do! Let’s see, I send money to organizations that help preserve habitat for the declining desert species, like tortoises, road runners, and rattle snakes. I am a very out spoken about the bogus info fed to the public about wolves and have written numerous articles about the flawed Wyoming proposals on managing wolves. I have a foundation which is currently being reviewed by an attorney in order to facilitate under privledged children being given basic outdoor skills, and the tools necessary to enjoy nature.
      You can definitely NOT tell me I only pay for conservation so I can shoot things, and have even an ounce of validity to your statement.

      I agree, humans are the problem. Therefore, we owe it to all impacted animals to be the sollution. I just think right now, in many cases, hunting is a part of that sollution.
      We expend millions “controlling” animals to keep cattle and sheep ‘safe’. I personally think those millions would be better spent conserving open space. I am opposed to public land grazing. I don’t expect the government to protect my dog in my own yard, so I wouldn’t be in favor of protecting cattle in a feed lot either.
      You are right that many millions are spent from all tax payers, I don’t doubt that for a moment. But tax dollars are not spent volluntarily. What I pay out my pocket is, including my habitat stamp. Not many hikers purchase a habitat stamp simply because they hike…I do.
      As for coyotes or wolves being the most persecuted animals, I could throw a few more in the mix. But most certainly, at this point I would say wolves need our protection more than coyotes.
      You and I generally see things in a common way. I don’t advocate red neck hunting logic. But I certainly say that science should be the key source on how to develope regulations. Not sentiment, ranchers, oil men or even the almighty dollar.

      I personally would be glad to pay higher taxes for the things that need to be done, like wild space conservation, species impact studies, ending the use of plastic water bottles, etc.

      It is not now, nor has it even been, about money for me. In fact, I haven’t hunted with anything but a camera in a very long time. But the realistic things that we need to see is, hunters do spend money, on licenses, conservation, and the contribute to the tax base in retail ways as well. They are not all evil, and they don’t all pay money because they are forced to.

      Why bring up PETA, seriously, it was a comparrison, an illustration of extremes. Geez. It is okay to say all hunters are selfish, but not okay to lump all anti-hunters in with PETA, hypocracy at it’s finest.

      • avatar Salle says:

        I didn’t bring up PETA… nor whatever the rest of that topic of discussion followed. Didn’t say that hunters were evil either.

        Those who contribute to conservation groups, like DoW, Nature Conservancy etc. are not forced to do so… but we are all required to pay taxes from our general income and through retail taxes. The word “conservation” is not copyrighted to the hunt/fish “harvesters” alone. The term “environmentalist” was devised as a negative invocation by the media… in reality “environmentalists” are usually conservationists, perhaps more so than the “harvesters”.

      • avatar vickig says:

        salle, that section was not directed t you. I generally agree with what you just said. However I don’t know who does more, harvesters vs conservationists. I consider myself both to some degree. But I get what you are saying. Sorry for not clarifying that my reference to you ended at that paragraph.

  31. avatar vickif says:

    I have. Have you ever heard of Trout Unlimited? That is just a lame arguement which is not even worth going through. Nobody said non-hunters didn’t contribute. But just because you don’t hunt, doesn’t meen all hunters are irrational idiots with no regard to nature. Don’t assume that because people do one, they don’t care about the other.

    • avatar Jay says:


      • avatar william huard says:

        Yeah Jay- the hunters in the west are always bitching how the predators are “decimatin” all their game herds- is that what you mean about promoting the wellness of wildlife and their habitat?- Or your predator derbies- designed to manage and persecute coyotes because they will over populate! Animals like coyotes have been on the landscape like wolves long before the modern day trapper or hunter was here- and we don’t need hunters to regulate them.

      • avatar Jay says:

        Not my quote William–that was Vicki’s, which I cut/pasted to illustrate her contradictory statement.

      • avatar vickif says:

        Narrow minded extremists are exactly why I stopped posting here months ago.
        The simple idea that maybe there are those of us in the middle seems inconceivable to most of the people here. The reality is, there are far more of us in the middle than on either side of the extremes.
        To be incapable of making compromises is just selfish. Compromise promotes change, change promotes learning, learning creates the ability to solve problems. People who refuse to hop down from their soap boxes and meet someone across a table to make compromises are always going to think they stand above everyone else. The view might be great, but in the end, you are left atop a box alone and everyone else gets really sick of being told they are the problem.

      • avatar jon says:

        William, if hunters don’t like competing with more efficient predators like wolves and mt. lions, quit your bitching and stop hunting or go move to some state where you don’t have to compete with wild predators for wild game. I am sick of these hunters and their hatred for predators who are doing nothing wrong, but trying to survive!

      • avatar william huard says:

        Sorry Jay

      • avatar jon says:

        William, it’s not only in the west. In Michigan and Minnesota you have it and here in the east you have it. Here in Maine, hunters (not all) believe coyotes have wiped out all of the deer and want to bring coyote bounties back along with snaring. I guess these two things are based on “science” right? these people have embedded into their minds, it’s predators that are responsible for killing off the deer and they must be eradicated, so we can bring the deer back to exploding numbers so we can shoot them. This is not conservation in the least. It is have a landscape filled with an exploding population of deer and little to no predators.

    • avatar vickif says:

      Humans have been hunting, and not just for food, for the longevity of our history as well. We may have ended the need to hunt, but we also ended the space for animals to reign supreme too. How many square feet is your house? Maybe you should tear it down and put up a kwanzaa hut with no water or electric? I would say your living habits are as big a detrament to animals as hunting could be.

      I agree humans are badly in need of some management ourselves, we definitely created the mess we now have. But hunters are just as entitled to their ideas as you are.

      • avatar jon says:

        I agree with you on that. What is going to happen when we get to say 50 billion? There are already millions of people starving right now in the world. It is not going to look good for our species and nature will take care of us.

  32. avatar vickif says:

    William and Jay,
    It isn’t contradictory, it was me saying “then do something about it” I do.
    And maybe you should take a good long hard look back,. I never said squat about decimnating herds. In fact, I spoke to the need to keep coyotes from becoming desease infested and starved. But I guess it is easier to over look reality and just insult people. Good day gentlemen. And way to alienate people from your cause!

    • avatar Jay says:

      You think you’re building bridges with your, “I buy hunting licenses, you don’t, so put your money where you mouth is” comments?

      • avatar vickif says:

        I am pretty certain you were burning them long before I stated anything.

      • avatar vickif says:

        Besides, you aren’t reaching out, you are trying to dominate and be your own version of right. Go ahead, you don’t need anyone to agree, you would rather just believe you won. I conceed. You win, a very hollow victory, enjoy!

      • avatar vickif says:

        And if you want to quote me, do it accurately. I said put your money where your heart is, not mouth.
        I do. ANd I said heart with intention….so it would be a bit easier to see that I understand people are passionate about hunting or anti-hunting. Unlike you, I just choose to see both sides’ reasoning.

      • avatar Jay says:

        One too many cups of coffee this morning?

  33. avatar vickif says:

    You guys really don’t need an opposing opinion. You make your arguements up don’t you? I never mentioned competition. I didn’t express the need to kill all coyotes. I seriously am appauled at your lack of ability to see what people are saying. My God, sometimes it is just about you guys being able to blurt out whatever you want, even if you insenuate and fabricate what other people think, say, or do. No wonder people call nature advocates nut cases…you give even the best of them a bad name.

    • avatar william huard says:

      You talk about reality, the reality is as you talk about hunters being so environmentally responsible and wanting decisions based on science, right under our noses the Don Peay’s and SCI’s of the world are trying to use Congress to undermine ESA protections for predators! That’s the reality

      • avatar vickif says:

        And he is the only hunter? The only representation of hunting as a whole? Nope. Guess, what…check out my comment under “have you seen any interesting…”. I didn’t talk about “hunters being so environmentally responsible”. I talked about not ALL hunters being irresponsible. Get your facts straight, and actually try thinking about what I said.

        You seem pissed because I think hunting is a viable resource for species management. I think that species management is necessary because we have caused it to be so. You seem to think all hunters are barbaric idiots,I simply say they aren’t.

        You can disagree, you can feel that way, just please refrain from inaccuaretly interpretting what others have said, me in particular. I never said we should irradicate coyotes. I never said we should have open season on wolves, or coyotes and wolves ate my dog, all the deer and even the moose and elk.

        I think I stated how I feel, and you clearly stated what you assume I feel, so now I am quite done aruing what you are not an authority on….my opinion.

    • avatar william huard says:

      Nutcases like me see hypocrisy very well when I see it.

  34. avatar vickif says:

    Very valid point, thanks for putting that out there. I work in health care, and I dislike public land grazing. I have never seen anyone associate the two in such a good manner.

    • avatar JB says:

      Thanks, vickif. I’m glad to see you’re posting again. This debate needs more voices from the middle!

      • avatar vickif says:

        Glad to see you are still on here!
        It’s funny, some of my hunting friends think I am extreme liberal, and some of my ‘green’ friends find me too conservative. LOL, my father (an economist) calls me a psuedo republican. My boss calls me a tree hugging anti-hippie. I guess being in the middle doesn’t have a specific name.

      • avatar Save bears says:

        Boy Vicki,

        You can say that again!


  35. avatar Elk275 says:

    Maybe everyone should stop bitching here and look at what the real threats to are wildlife:


    Where you are a hunter or a wildlife watcher the Republican control Montana House and Senate have some bad bills that are going to affect hunters, wildlife watchers and et al.

    The wildlife watchers and environmentalist do not have the power to stop these bills; it is the hunters, fishermen, voters and the Montana Wildlife Federation that has the influence to kill and modify bills.

    The bill that Debbie Barrett of Dillon is introducing to allow other wildlife other than buffalo to be managed by the Montana Department of Livestock is an attempt to privatize wildlife.

    Pay attention, do not worry if someone wants to shoot a coyote or set traps there are other worries far greater.

  36. avatar Harley says:

    This has been a very interesting read! I don’t think the animal looks like a coyote either, just saying.

    I do have a question though. When coyotes do become a nuisance in a suburban/urban area, what can be done? Some experts here in the midwest say that trapping really doesn’t do any good. Why is that? If they are truly over populated, what can be done? They certainly have a good food base here in the midwest, we do have plenty of deer in Illinois. I… don’t think we have a wolf population. We have a few stray cougars from time to time! But seriously, about the coyotes. I’ve heard more and more problems and encounters with them over the past couple of years.

    • avatar JB says:


      Trapping is not really feasible in suburban areas–too many pets and people walking around. Moreover, even in rural areas where coyotes can be hunted and trapped their populations tend to rebound almost immediately–so trying to control populations is essentially a waste of time.

      Fortunately, most coyotes go about their business and are rarely seen by humans, and “problem” coyotes (i.e., those that are killing pets or have lost their fear of people) can still be targeted and removed–this (targeting offending animals) is most effective for reducing conflicts.

      • avatar Harley says:

        So… we gotta learn to live with em? I personally have not had any problems but I know a number of people that have lost pets to them. It’s a relief to know that the problem ones can be targeted. I know they have them in the city of Chicago too! heh so much for moving to the city to get away from that sort of thing! I find that rather amusing actually. I realize that building like crazy new sub divisions does not help the problem when the natural habitat is taken from them. In some ways, the housing development slump has been good in that regard. Yeah, and I don’t advocate poison either, too many other animals get it and not what you’re trying to get.
        One night, my son stepped outside for a cigarette break and a coyote walked right past him, about the length of a one car driveway. Scared the poop outa him! The animal pretty much ignored him but he had no idea the coyotes were that close. We’ve seen a few foxes running through the neighborhood in the day light, like the early morning, late evening but that was his first personal almost up close encounter with a coyote.

    • avatar Bob says:

      Coyotes are like all predators when there is lots of food they produce lots of offspring. They tend to try and kill off other predators, so dogs and cats can be killed. If they eat through their food supply the population is said to self regulate, meaning starve down to a lower number. This group will tell you that you need wolves, but after living with them for 15+ years the ones who like wolves the most are least effected by them. Coyotes are comfortable living in town with people there is little to threaten them. Trapping works well in the country, but towns would be tough.

      • avatar Harley says:

        Yeah, Bob one of my concerns is that if they get to a point where they are eating themselves outa house and home, they turn to domestic pets or I know that over population can also lead to more rabies and mange which isn’t good either.

      • avatar Bob says:

        We’ve lost lots of cats and one dog to coyotes they’ve never eaten one, just kill them. Have seen several with what looked like mange winter takes care of that problem you need a good coat. Rabies tends to start in other species don’t know much about that.

    • Given enough people and enough coyotes, there will be incidents, sometimes serious.

      Here is a scholarly article of considerable interest. It is over a decade old.

      Leghold traps do work.

      Title: Management of Conflicts Between Urban Coyotes and Humans in Southern California.

      Author: Baker, Rex O., California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; Timm, Robert M., University of California, Davis


    • avatar vickif says:

      The bad part about mange is that coyotes will re-use den sites.
      Correct me here if I am wrong JB.
      But if an infested animal had once used a site, it could lead to reinfestation of other denning animals later.
      God forbid we ever had a serious parvo out-break. It is near impossible to get rid of Parvo, and it is a hiddeous way to die. Any canine that decides to dwell near the area a parvo stricken animals has been is at risk. It (being a wicked virus) can also be carried on feet, through feced etc. when little critters go from one spot to the next.

      A large number of animals that roam and are infected with just about any thing, can spell disaster.

      CWD is just one of the deseases we can’t seem to stop the spread of, because it is hard to contain the exposure zone.

      In that light, wolves really out do humans. They have been studied and seem to be able to tell when an ungulate is prion infected (like they sense most weakness and illness I am sure). When it comes to CWD, wolves are our best defense against it, science hasn’t caught up just yet.

  37. avatar Nancy says:

    Harley – I’d suggest you do some more research. Mankind and our endless pursuit (and destruction) of the landscape, is the only reason so many other species are floundering right now.

  38. avatar Harley says:

    Coyotes aren’t exactly floundering. They are very prolific. At least around here they are. I’m not asking to blast them out of existence. Posting here was part of my research.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Pay attention to your words Harley…….
      Harley Says:
      January 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM

      if you are doing research.

      • avatar Harley says:

        Not sure why you seem intent on picking a fight. I did some research. Now I was asking the people here, in a very non antagonistic way. If you’d like, I can list more links that I’ve read up on. I think that research shouldn’t be limited to just reading online articles. I thought I would get opinions and views from both sides of the fence along with the things I’ve read.
        If you’re intent on shoving things into my face, don’t bother replying.
        If you have something useful that I might learn from, please, post!



    • avatar Harley says:

      Thanks Jon, another read for tonight!

    • avatar Harley says:

      Hmm… I don’t know if it was true or if someone was making some stuff up but I heard some report of coyotes ‘being let loose’ on the streets of Chicago to combat the rat problem. I wish I could remember where I saw that now!
      Wait! found it!
      Not sure if that’s really the best plan to get rid of the rats. But the Coyotes will certain have a lot to feed on.
      Thanks for the article Jon

  39. avatar Nancy says:

    Harley Says:
    January 2, 2011 at 6:49 PM
    Not sure why you seem intent on picking a fight.

    Picking a fight? Harley, I live and have lived around coyotes for years. Where do you live Harley?

    • avatar jon says:

      Nancy, have you ever had any problems with coyotes what so ever?

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Jon, only once. New to the area when a big coyote came down to my fenced yard one evening. My neutered, male dog was going ballistic, the coyote moved off when I appeared, but he moved off slowly as if to make a point – welcome to the neighborhood but please respect the boundaries?

    • avatar Harley says:

      If you live and have lived around coyotes for years, you would have a vast well of experience to share with me instead of telling me, repeatedly, to do my research.
      If you live and have lived around coyotes for years, you would be hard pressed to put them into a category of a species that is floundering.
      Coyotes are extremely adaptable. They can be found in rural, suburban and urban areas. I would hardly call that floundering.
      I say picking a fight because it seems that you are bent on putting me in my place instead of possibly sharing your vast well of experience.
      And if you payed attention to my postings, you would have read that I’m from the midwest. And since I’ve referenced Chicago, it would be a logical assumption to conclude that I must be from around there.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Harley, my vast “well” of experience is based upon personal interactions, not scientific, so I doubt it will do you any good in your quest for the actual truth.

      • avatar Harley says:

        Sometimes personal experiences trump scientific ones Nancy. Sometimes an eye witness account is more ‘truthful’ than something written up in a scientific journal, specially if that eyewitness account is from a credible source, or a source that you deem credible.
        After all, isn’t that the root of scientific journals, things that are based off of eyewitnessed accounts of things?
        Thank you for your reply though and I do appreciate your experience with coyote experience as I have not had one myself. My only close encounter involved a coyote making a mad dash right in front of my car. Fast little bugger….
        I do like to hear them at night. I hear them more often than I used to.

  40. avatar vickif says:

    Lead me Obie Wan Kenobi, I agree!

  41. avatar vickif says:

    I have been around coyotes for decades. I have been able to watch them in many geographical locations. They are smart little buggers.
    I have only seen interactions become a big issue when their has been habituation and/or encroachment. I once saw a coyote eating another one. She didn’t seem to be in good health, and was very thin. I have seen them kill one another a number of times. I have watched them snatch a friend’s dog off her porch, and then the next winter, her healer mix ended up actually having what we think were coyote mix puppies. (I have no idea if they were, but she did tie up with a coyote in the back yard. The coyote had literally climbed the fence she had put up after the other dog got snatched!)

    Coyotes are no different than many animals. They do what they do to survive.

    I enjoy watching them hunt rodents. I think it is amazing how they pounce through snow to eat mice or voles that are under feet of snow.

    I wouldn’t call them a nuisance. I call them the wave of the future. If animals in broader spectrums are to continue to exist, they could use some of the coyotes adaptation abilities. ( Foxes, racoons and skunks are just as good at this stuff)

    I would suggest contacting local wildlife agencies, and even college profs. They can be a great resource.

    If you want to see arguements between opposing sides….check out what is written by ag industries as opposed to many animal enthusiasts. (Not that the two are mutually exclusive).

    Good luck!

    • avatar Harley says:

      Thanks for the response and the additional places to contact. The local wildlife agencies are the ones who have said how difficult it would be to trap to control coyotes, so that I knew about.
      We used to work with the conservation work groups when I had a Cub Scout age child. I remember how the man in charge showed us where they had dragged a road killed deer that the local coyotes had been feeding off of. Of course that is uber cool to a 4th grader!

  42. avatar Alan Gregory says:

    Missouri, it’s worth noting, enfranchises all of its citizens through a novel way of funding its Department of Conservation. Unlike Pennsylvania and other states, where state wildlife and fish agencies are funded solely through the revenue from the sale of hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, Missouri collects one-eighth of every cent of sales tax and directs that big pool of money toward conservation.


December 2010
« Nov   Jan »



~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: