"Wolves encounter unique hunting challenges during the winter as snow increases the cost of locomotion and influences their ability to detect and pursue prey"..........."During the two winters of 2013-14, University of Alberta(Canada ) researchers investigated the effects of snowfall events on grey wolves in the boreal forest ecosystem of northeastern Alberta............"They found that wolves were less likely to travel on dates of snowfall events than any date prior to or after an event".............."Wolves also traveled more slowly during snowfall, but only when compared to their travel speed 24 hours before"............."Effects were most pronounced at night, when movements appeared to be consistent with hunting behavior"..........."Activity levels resumed within 24 hours of a snowfall ending".........."The Scientists conclude that wolves reduce their activity levels because precipitation dampens hunting success as their ability to detect prey(combined with changes in prey activity behaviour) dampen encounters and subsequent kill success"

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-wolves.html

Snowed in: Wolves stay put when it's snowing, study shows

December 19, 2018 by Katie Willis; University of Alberta, Canada

Wolf tracks across snow in northeastern Alberta. The study found that wolves travel shorter distances and move slower during snowfall. Credit: Amanda Droghini

Wolves travel shorter distances and move slower during snowfall events, according to new research by University of Alberta biologists. The effects were most pronounced at night, when wolves hunt, and behaviour returned to normal within a day. Wolf tracks across snow in northeastern Alberta.

"Our findings suggest that there is something about actively falling snow that causes wolves to slow down," said Amanda Droghini, a former MSc student in the Department of Biological Science and lead author on the study. "We don't know the exact mechanism behind that. It's unlikely that they were staying still because they were feasting on a recent kill. Instead, active precipitation might affect wolves' hunting abilities. Like rain, snow clears the air column of scent molecules. So, maybe falling snow makes it harder for wolves to detect the smell of prey."

In their study, researchers used cameras and data transmitted from collars on 17 wolves. (Submitted by Amanda Droghini)

Over the course of two winters, the researchers used remote cameras to identify snowfall events and estimate snow depth. To study wolf movement, they collected telemetry data from 17 wolves to calculate travel speed and duration, as well as resting periods. It is the first study to examine how large carnivores respond to snowfall events.

With the effects of climate change on precipitation in the boreal forest region uncertain, it is difficult to predict the implications for wolf populations. Studies such as these increase our understanding of how large mammals react to normal snowfall events, but the type and amount of winter precipitation will likely have an impact on animal behavior and the energetic cost of movement.

Site of the Study--Alberta on the Canadian map

Map of our study area in northeastern Alberta, Canada, near the town of Fort McMurray.

From January to March 2013 and 2014, remote cameras were deployed to identify snowfall events, and 17 grey wolves were equipped with GPS telemetry collars. Location fixes were acquired every 10 or 30 minutes and are summarized here as daily centroid locations. Each color represents a wolf pack (n = 9, plus one lone wolf). Major rivers are shown in dark blue, while linear features (mostly seismic lines for oil and gas exploration) are in grey.

"Winter is already challenging for many wildlife species because moving through snow requires more energy. Snow can also make it harder for animals to access food resources," said Droghini, who conducted the research under the supervision of Professor Stan Boutin, Alberta Biodiversity Conservation Chair.

"Anything that increases those costs, such as increased rain-on-snow events, could lead to nutritional deficiencies, poor body condition, and even starvation as animals are unable to make up for those additional costs. That is one of the worst-case scenarios but, in truth, we know very little about potential changes to precipitation patterns and how wildlife will respond to those changes."

The paper, "The calm during the storm: Snowfall events decrease the movement rates of grey wolves (Canis lupus)," was published in PLOS One.

More information: Amanda Droghini et al, The calm during the storm: Snowfall events decrease the movement rates of grey wolves (Canis lupus), PLOS ONE (2018). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205742 

Journal reference: PLoS ONE  

Pennsylvania biologists have conducted some of the most extensive studies on the impact of Eastern Coyotes, Black Bears, Bobcats and Fishers on the Keystone State's estimated 1.5 million Whitetail Deer population...........Every Study reinforces the fact that even with the most robust existing eastern-state-predator-suite at play in Pennsylvania woodlands and farm fields(estimated 20,000 Black Bears and 60-100,000 Eastern Coyotes) , Whitetails are thriving and not recognizing any type of population decline...........Penn State Fish and Wldlife Deer and Elk Unit supervisor Chris Rosenberry emphatically states: "Our field studies have shown repeatedly that predators are the No. 1 cause of fawn mortality, and more often than not, black bears are taking the fawns".............In the most recent 2015-17 study, 82 fawns were captured and fitted with radio collars on the northern study area on the Susquehannock State Forest"............."Another 83 fawns were captured and radio-collared on the southern study area, which included parts of the Rothrock and Bald Eagle state forests".............."There were 44 mortalities on the northern study area: 33 from predators, six from humans and five from natural causes"............ "Bears took 18 fawns; coyotes, eight; bobcats, two; and unknown predator, five"............."The southern study area had 38 mortalities: 18 from predators, 13 natural causes and five from humans"..........."Coyotes took six fawns; bears, five; bobcats, five; and unknown predator, two"...............“But fawn mortality is not causing deer-population reductions anywhere in Pennsylvania"..........“There was no evidence that predators were taking too many of our fawns in any of our 23 Wildlife Management Units"............“They all have stable or growing whitetail populations"

https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/Game-Commission-Details.aspx?newsid=221


Two Coyotes can kill adult Whitetail Deer but capturing fawns is far easier and
less stressful-view two South Carolina Coyotes killing an adult Whitetail deer(click link to view video)
https://youtu.be/guQDH_fPydQ

 06/26/2018; Pennsylvania Game Commision

FAWN STUDY DOCUMENTS STABLE SURVIVAL RATES

HARRISBURG, PA - Three years of field study, 165 captured fawns and more than 200,000 trail-camera photos again have demonstrated that Pennsylvania has good, stable fawn survival.

The research, which wrapped up in 2017, was started to see if predators – particularly coyotes – were taking more fawns than documented in a two-year study that began in 2000. The Game Commission and Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Penn State (PCFWRU) collaborated to design the study and conduct fieldwork.

Susquehannock and the Rothrock and Bald Eagle
Forests in Pennsylvania run north central to south central
on the map--site of the 2015-17 Deer/predator study

It is generally accepted by wildlife managers that coyotes kill relatively few adult deer. However, this one is carrying an adult deer head. The coyote may not have been involved in killing the deer—it may have scavenged the skull. Credit: Penn State

Although the playing field had changed in the study areas when the second study began in 2015 – Pennsylvania had more predators and deer – the results essentially were the same, according to Christopher Rosenberry, who supervises the agency’s Deer and Elk Section.

“There was no evidence that predators were taking too many of our fawns in any of our 23 Wildlife Management Units,” Rosenberry said. “They all have stable or growing whitetail populations.”

Camera traps are being used more and more by scientists to study the space use of species and the interaction among species. Credit: Penn State

“Our field studies have shown repeatedly that predators are the No. 1 cause of fawn mortality, and more often than not, black bears are taking the fawns,” Rosenberry said. “But fawn mortality is not causing deer-population reductions anywhere in Pennsylvania.”

Consistent fawn survival, coupled with consistent adult deer survival – 90 percent of adult deer survive from one hunting season to the next, has fostered straightforward deer management in Pennsylvania for some time, Rosenberry explained.

But even if the predator-take of fawns did impact deer populations, reductions in antlerless deer licenses would reverse their influence, Rosenberry noted.

The three principal predators that surfaced in the first study resurfaced in the second: black bears, coyotes and bobcats, said Duane Diefenbach, PCFWRU unit leader. Despite growing concern about fishers as deer predators, they didn’t take any fawns in the study. To date, no fisher has ever killed a radio-collared study fawn in North America, he noted.

Bobcats, like the one shown(look hard at lower left third of page, to the left of the straight trunked tree), may avoid areas with coyotes. And, researchers say, they are less efficient predators of fawns than coyotes. Credit: Penn State

In the 2015-17 study, 82 fawns were captured and fitted with radio collars on the northern study area on the Susquehannock State Forest. Another 83 fawns were captured and radio-collared on the southern study area, which included parts of the Rothrock and Bald Eagle state forests.

There were 44 mortalities on the northern study area: 33 from predators, six from humans and five from natural causes. Bears took 18 fawns; coyotes, eight; bobcats, two; and unknown predator, five.

The southern study area had 38 mortalities: 18 from predators, 13 natural causes and five from humans. Coyotes took six fawns; bears, five; bobcats, five; and unknown predator, two.

“Predation was the main source of mortality,” explained Tess Gingery, a Penn State graduate student with the PCFWRU. “It’s that way across North America.

The research is looking at just how fawns are using the landscape and surviving in a space where so many predators are out to get them. The photos show how fawns are using the habitat, and at what times, and how they are co-occurring with predators in Pennsylvania's expansive forests. Credit: Penn State

“Since Pennsylvania’s fawn survival shows little change over time, this means that it’s stable and that makes it simpler for biologists to make harvest management recommendations,” she said.

Most fawn mortality occurred over the first eight weeks of a fawn’s life. Conversely, most human-caused mortality – roads, fences, farming activities and hunting – occurred in the 25- to 30-week window, Gingery said.

Natural mortality – starvation, disease, abandonment – was more pronounced on the southern study area in both the 2000-01 and 2015-17 studies.

Raccoons were detected more than 900 times by trail cams, said Asia Murphy, a Penn State graduate student with the PCFWRU. Bears – about 700 photos – were the most-detected major carnivore.

Penn State researchers says increased numbers of coyotes have not led to decreases in the native deer population.

Interestingly, fawns – about 800 photos – were detected even more than bears, which sheds light on their mobility, as well as the closeness in which they live to carnivores.

Adult deer were detected at 97 percent of camera sites, and fawns at 44 percent. But considering bears were detected at 64 percent of camera sites, followed by coyotes, 36 percent, and bobcats, 33, it’s clear that fawns share habitat with major predators throughout much of their young lives.

Deer and bears prefer forested settings. But in the southern study area, many does summered in farm areas because it was safer for their fawns to reach a size in which they could escape predators, Murphy said. By the fall, fawns returned to forested areas.

“Does are smart,” Murphy said. “They raise their fawns in safe places.”

Does in Penn’s Valley followed the same routine in the earlier study.

Pennsylvania’s latest fawn survival study shows near identical fawn survival rates over the last two decades and corroborates the relatively stable fawn-to-doe ratios collected from annual deer harvests. Consequently, Pennsylvania’s predator impacts do not appear to changing, and if they would, the Game Commission’s has a system in place to respond, if needed.

Whitetails over time have proven their capability to adjust to whatever advantage predators may gain by using behaviors to protect fawns. For example, in addition to using safer areas to raise fawns, does will spend time away from newborn fawns, only returning to feed a few times a day, so as to not attract the attention of predators. White-tailed deer remain one of the Commonwealth’s most versatile creatures. But they share that distinction with coyotes and bears, and that’s why there almost always will be concerns about the whitetail’s wellbeing among some hunters.

------------------------------------------------------

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-trail-cams-predators-deer-fawns.html#nRlv

Trail cams used to monitor predators of deer fawns

March 27, 2017 by Jeff Muhollem, 

Deer fawns in Pennsylvania face a cruel reality—only half of them survive until their first birthday, and much of that mortality results from predation.

Gaining a better understanding of fawn survival and predators was part of the motivation for research that began in 2015. As a part of that study, a researcher in Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences is deploying cameras, called trail cams, in Penn's Woods, using a novel technique called camera trapping to gauge numbers and distribution of predators.

Whitetail Fawn hiding in forest floor litter

Collaborating with colleagues in the Penn State-based Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the Pennsylvania Game Commission, doctoral degree candidate Asia Murphy is in the midst of a two-year study using trail cams to monitor bears, coyotes, bobcats, fishers and foxes in parts of three state forests—Bald Eagle, Rothrock and Susquehannock.

At any given time during the warm-weather months, she has 88 trail cams in operation, overlooking sites baited with scent attractants. Those attractants include bobcat urine, plaster-of-paris tablets impregnated with fatty acids, and a special attractant made from skunk glands. Murphy noted that each of these scents has a different appeal to the predator species she is studying. Last year, her trail cams collected thousands of photos, with many "captures" of predators.

Black Bear with Deer fawn dinner

"I'm interested in looking at just how these fawns are using the landscape and surviving in this space where all these predators are out to get them," said Murphy, who earned her undergraduate degree in fisheries and wildlife science from North Carolina State University and a master's degree in fish and wildlife conservation from Virginia Tech University. "The photos show how are they using the habitat, and at what times, and how they are co-occurring with predators in these big forests."

The first question the researchers hope to answer is whether there is a relationship between where predators are found and where fawns survive, explained Duane Diefenbach, adjunct professor of wildlife ecology, who is Murphy's adviser. For example, he noted, there is evidence to suggest that fawn predation is greater in forested habitats compared to agricultural lands. If so, this study will be able to measure the variation in the distribution of predators.

Deer fawn hiding in field

Second, camera traps record not only where we find predators but where we don't, added Diefenbach, who is leader of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. This may be important to fawn survival in certain forest habitats, such as areas with denser understory vegetation.

"Third, camera traps are being used more and more by scientists to study the space use of species and the interaction among species," he said. "The multi-predator system that exists in Pennsylvania means that these predators have to share space and prey. We're hoping that Asia's work will provide a greater understanding of the interrelationships of these predators."

Eastern Coyote capturing Whitetail fawn

After a season of camera trapping in Pennsylvania, Murphy—who came to Penn State solely to conduct this research, in part, because "the project sounded cool"—has perhaps more questions than answers about predators.

The research might show whether the predators are avoiding each other, she pointed out. For instance, it is known that coyotes kill bobcats, so her results might show that coyotes and bobcats are not using the same habitat areas. "If they are avoiding each other, then it might be safer for fawns to be in areas both predators aren't using," she said.

Not a simple meal to obtain-Two Eastern Coyotes killing
an adult Whitetail

"Predators differ, in time and space, in how dangerous they are to fawns. We know bobcats are not as efficient as coyotes at preying on very young fawns. So if bobcats are avoiding an area because there are coyotes there, it might be a better area for older fawns."

A native of Sacramento, California, Murphy is uniquely qualified to conduct the research in Pennsylvania. Before arriving at Penn State, she participated for two years in a Virginia Tech camera-trapping project focused on carnivores in Madagascar's Makira National Park. She started camera trapping in 2011 when she was an undergraduate using trail cams to study carnivore distribution in southwest Virginia.

Eastern Coyote has a Fawn meal

"With wildlife, cameras can teach us a lot that we can't learn with traditional research methods," she said. "But they still can't tell us everything."

U. of Wyoming researchers have determined that in the face of potential Wolf predation, larger ungulates like Moose are more willing to stand their ground and not abandon their preferrred vegetation habitat near streams and marshy areas, especially in late winter when food is at a premium and starvation can be a very real fact of life...............Known as the STARVATION-PREDATION HYPOTHESIS, this behaviour response to the threat of wolf predation trumps THE LANDSCAPE OF FEAR HYPOTHESIS(prey animals avoid preferred habitat in the presence of predators) in this particular predator/prey interaction..............And as Wolves are coursing(chase) predators and prefer large expanses of open ground when pursuing prey, the late winter refuge of Moose in the horzontal tangle of marsh gives this hoofed browser added confidence to eat rather than flee when Wolves come into their "neighborhood..................Nonetheless, the U. of Wyoming Research team does acknowledge that although moose may be generally less responsive to predation risk from wolves, a heightened behavioral response by Moose during early winter suggests that anti-predator behavior is dynamic within and among species of ungulates"

:

https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/40367/20190314/hungry-moose-more-tolerant-wolves-presence.htm

Hungry moose more tolerant of wolves' presence

By Staff Reporter

Mar 14, 2019

Driven by the need for food, moose in western Wyoming are less likely to change their behavior to avoid wolves as winter progresses, according to new research by University of Wyoming scientists.

A GPS-collared moose in western Wyoming moves into willows for food and protection. New University of Wyoming research has documented interactions between moose and wolves in the region.

The findings, published today (March 13) in the journal Ecology, provide new insights into the interactions of the region's apex predators and their prey. The results also highlight the complexity of the relationships between wolves and big-game species, making it difficult to reach general conclusions about whether and how fear of wolves has impacted the ecosystem, the researchers say.

 Yellowstone wolves have severely hamstrung this moose…and now await it to bleed out and go down.  Then, in normal wolf fashion, the pack will feed on the still alive moose, often eating out the meaty rear portions – and leaving the animal to suffer a lingering death.  To bring down a sizeable animal such as this can take several days, and the hungry pack will aggressively defend their food source.

"We have known for some time that hungry animals will tolerate the presence of predators in order to forage and avoid starvation, and that phenomenon, called the 'starvation-predation hypothesis,' is supported by our research," says Brendan Oates, now with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, who conducted the research as a UW graduate student. "In this case, close proximity of wolves does cause moose to move, but not enough to drive them from their preferred habitats -- especially late in the winter."

Oates is the lead author of the Ecology paper. Co-authors include his UW advisers: Jake Goheen, associate professor in UW's Department of Zoology and Physiology, and Matt Kauffman, a U.S. Geological Survey researcher based at UW. UW's Jerod Merkle, assistant professor in the Department of Zoology and Physiology, also was involved with the research, as were agency personnel from the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The scientists tracked movements of dozens of GPS-collared moose and wolves in Grand Teton National Park and the Bridger-Teton National Forest over a five-year period, detecting 120 unique encounters among 25 individual moose and six wolf packs. An encounter was defined as when moose and wolves were within about 1,600 yards of each other.

They found that movements of moose increased in early winter following encounters with wolves, but only when wolves were within about 550 yards. Even then, the moose didn't move from their preferred habitat, which is near streams and marshy areas. Late in the winter, when the moose were presumed to be hungrier, there was no change in the movement rates of the animals in response to wolves in the vicinity.

"The unwillingness of moose to abandon preferred habitats following encounters with wolves adds further support for the starvation-predation hypothesis," the researchers wrote.

In contrast, previous research has shown that elk -- the primary prey of wolves in the region -- will move when wolves approach within about 1,000 yards, even during winter. Elk also move from their preferred habitat to avoid wolves. The difference may be explained simply by the fact that moose are larger than elk and are more likely to stand their ground when approached by wolves, the researchers say.

Additionally, the nature of moose's preferred habitat -- described as "structurally complex" -- means it could serve as both a good food source and a refuge from wolves.

Still, it would be inaccurate to say that the presence of wolves doesn't affect moose movements.

"Although moose may be generally less responsive to predation risk from wolves, our detection of a heightened behavioral response during early winter suggests that anti-predator behavior is dynamic within and among species of ungulates," the researchers concluded

"For a little more than the past two years(2017-present), National Park Service researchers and volunteers in Los Angeles collected coyote scat at 27 sites, most of them in LA, including spots coyotes frequent in Griffith Park, Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, Frogtown, Beverly Hills, Culver City and Baldwin Hills"............"In all, the research team collected and dissected more than 3,200 samples.........Investigating their diet is one part of a larger NPS coyote study from the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, dubbed the L.A. Urban Coyote Project"........."The overall goal is to better understand how the estimated 5,000 Los Angeles Coyote population has managed to carve out such a comfortable spot in the densely human populated, urban ecosystem we share together".........."The research reveals that in the city of Los Angeles and western northwest suburbs(1000 Oaks), the Coyote diet consists of----Read as City % first figure and suburb % 2nd figure): Human and pet foods 26% 8%,,,,, Rabbits 18% 48%..... Pocket gophers 9% 13%,,,,,, Ornamental fruits 26% 24%,,,,, Insects 19% 15%,,,,, Domestic cats 20% 4%"............."The bottom line is that City dwelling Coyotes depend heavily on human created food(garbage/pet food and cats) whereas suburban Coyotes lean toward rabbits and rodents, with both city and suburban canids loving fruit"............"From 1996-2004, the (NPS) biologists also studied coyote populations in Thousand Oaks, Agoura Hills and Calabasas in suburban Los Angeles and Ventura Counties".........."This study involved the capture and radio-collaring of 128 coyotes".......... "Coyotes were found to be present and in relatively high densities in almost all of the remaining natural habitat fragments throughout the study area"............."Although coyotes will visit the surrounding urban areas, they were found to prefer spending time in the natural open space"............"However, many of the remaining fragments around Thousand Oaks, Agoura Hills and Calabsas are too small to support a family group of coyotes, and therefore these groups must include multiple fragments within their home range"..........."To use these fragmented patches, coyotes are forced to travel through developed areas, including crossing roadways of various sizes".........."Some habitat fragments have become separated by large networks of urbanization so that even home and apartment dwellers not on the edge of natural areas may come into contact with coyotes as they move between these natural habitat patches"..........."However most of the coyotes that occur in these patches are rarely seen by the citizens living around them"..........."They tend to be very secretive, which has allowed them to persist in these urbanized areas"............... "In this suburban region of Los Angeles, Coyote diet consisted mainly consist of native fruits and small mammals such as rabbits, woodrats, and mice"..........."These suburban coyotes only occasionally utilized human food sources, most predominantly ornamental or non-native fruits which can constitute up to 25% of their diet".........."Other items such as trash, pet food and domestic pets may also be consumed on occasion, but constitutes a very small percentage of coyote diets in this study area"......... "The number one source of mortality in the study area was vehicle collisions".......... "Roads act as a barrier to movement and gene flow, as well as a direct source of mortality". The surprising find was that the next most important source of mortality for coyotes in the study area are rat poisons"............."Canids (a.k.a. dog species) are very vulnerable to the effects of anticoagulant rat poisons, the most commonly used method of rodent control worldwide"............"Coyotes are likely secondarily exposed to the poisons, meaning that they are consuming the small rodent pest species that people are targeting with the poisons"............"These poisons have a delayed action so that once a coyote eats the poisons, it can take up to 10 days for them to die"

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2019/03/21/urban-coyote-poop/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTMjEzNDgzOTM4Njg4ODg2Mjk4MTIaZjUwOWE2YjQ0ZTNkYzY4OTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNEvfANvkQZiSNPT7bRq7Jq7Jf9h6w

Los AngelesScat party: To unlock the secrets of urban coyotes, biologists turn to poop

Ryan Fonseca 

Thursday, March 21, 2019

 Urban Coyotes exist easily with humans in Los Angeles-Photo
National Park Service

LOS ANGELES – First off, yes, this is a story about poop, which we all know is funny.

So please get all the snickers, chuckles and chortles out of your system now, because this poop story has a valuable lesson about how Los Angeles residents share this wildland-urban interface with coyotes – and why it’s our fault when things go wrong.

When it comes to Angelenos’ coyote troubles, Justin Brown, a biologist with the National Park Service, said he’s heard it all.

Graduate student Danielle Martinez works under a fume hood to examine the stomach contents of urban coyotes at Cal State Fullerton. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times

Left, stomach contents of urban coyotes are put into labeled petri dishes. Right, what is left of a ground squirrel is seen while examining the stomach contents at Cal State Fullerton. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

“I have people coming in telling me that their neighbor’s feeding them, some where the coyote’s coming up behind them, chasing them and their little dog as they’re walking down the street, to some people where there’s just a coyote that sleeps in their yard every day,” he told LAist. “If you’re having conflicts in your area, they’re coming into your neighborhood for a reason. There’s some sort of resource they’re finding.”

And Brown, fellow scientists and local nature fans investigated those reasons by looking at coyote scat.

For a little more than two years, NPS researchers and volunteers collected scat at 27 sites, most of them in LA, including spots coyotes frequent in Griffith Park, Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, Frogtown, Beverly Hills, Culver City and Baldwin Hills.

In all, the research team collected and dissected more than 3,200 samples, which literally is a crapload.

Coyote in the largest downtown natural park in the USA(Griffith Park in Burbank, Calif)

A few of the sample sites were in more suburban and wildland pockets in the Conejo Valley, including Thousand Oaks, “to see if the amount and types of food vary based on a certain level of urbanization,” Brown said.

Despite having coexisted with them in Southern California for so long, much about urban coyotes remains a mystery, Brown said, such as pack size or even how many live in the city.

Investigating their diet is just one part of a larger NPS coyote study from the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, dubbed the L.A. Urban Coyote Project. The overall goal is to better understand how they’ve managed to carve out such a comfortable spot in the hybrid ecosystem we share.

How do you study scat?

It’s not as simple as finding droppings and grabbing a pair of gloves. Every coyote scat sample gets put through a process that basically eliminates the poopiest parts of the poop, Brown said. First the scat is brought to NPS scientists, who bake it for sterilization. The sample then is placed in a little nylon bag and gets washed and dried.

Fur and whiskers also offer clues about urban coyotes. (Photo courtesy of National Park Service)

“You wash it to get rid of all that extra stuff, that way when you go to dissect it, you don’t just have lots of dirt,” Brown said.

After that, the poop is ready for inspection – and it’s time to throw a party.

NPS has hosted volunteer events where members of the public learn to dissect and catalog what they find in the coyote poop samples, aptly called scat parties.

Volunteer Merri Huang first heard about the project and the call for volunteers in a KPCC story and signed up. She said she has been a “a backyard naturalist” since moving to LA in 1980 (it probably helps that she has a master’s degree in field biology).

“(I) was amazed at the number of species in my own backyard,” she said, “and front yard, where I’ve seen coyotes off and on for years.”

Howling coyote!  Coyotes are well known for their howling songs, often heard at night in both urban and natural areas around the Santa Monica Mountains.  Song is important for communication between coyotes.  Photo taken by Jared Hughey

At a typical scat party, Huang said, you check in, get coffee and a bagel, then grab a sample and get to work. Volunteers place their samples on paper towels and start picking out the contents into separate piles: animal parts, plants, fruits, insects and trash. Some volunteers don’t even bother wearing gloves, NPS spokeswoman Ana Beatriz Cholo said, adding that ‘gloves are kind of annoying,” and fur can stick to them.

Volunteers verify or correct their findings using matching samples, field guides and the internet, but also get help from Brown and other scientists.

“People are curious. They want to know what these animals are doing there,” Brown said. “This is the way they can answer some of those questions by coming and seeing.”

NPS scientists even had to turn down some poop eager volunteers wanted to bring in from backyards and other places, since they needed to focus on specific sites for consistent data-gathering.

A photo of a coyote taken in Cheseboro Canyon in the Simi Valley.  Photo taken by Jared Hughey.

“My favorite part was sharing science with others who were curious, perpetual learners, collaborating towards a future goal,” Huang said. “It’s fun to be with people who share my excitement about identifying a Dixie cup, or a rabbit’s tooth, or a reptile scale, a beetle’s wing, or even a microchip in a scat.”

After a bit of work, lunch is provided, then it’s back to more poop.

Volunteers are responsible for the vast majority of collections and dissections, Brown said, and he credited them for their hard, important work.

Unraveling the mysteries of feces

For Brown, who has been studying coyotes for nearly 20 years, what really stood out was how much fruit local coyotes eat. Most of it isn’t fruit humans throw out – the source is non-native, ornamental plants ubiquitous across LA. Some of the fruits commonly found in coyote scat included purple figs from ficus trees, pyracantha berries and dates from our iconic (but non-native) palm trees.

“Most people don’t even realize they eat fruit,” Brown said. “The coyotes definitely take advantage of them.”

Urban coyotes are also eating a lot of human and pet food, which was found in more a quarter of the samples. Other common meals are rabbits, cats, insects and gophers.

Brown believes most of the cat remains found in urban coyote scat point to feral cat colonies in those areas, which typically means someone in a neighborhood is feeding those feral cats. Of course, coyotes do sometimes get to small dogs, house cats and other pets.

Preliminary data from the study showed a notable difference between the diets of urban coyotes and those in the Conejo Valley. Most of those more suburban/rural coyotes munch on rabbits, fruit, rodents and insects, generally consuming far less human-generated garbage.

Brown noted that resources aren’t dwindling in the more wild areas where coyotes live, though “we’ve definitely pushed more and more into their habitat.”

Coyotes are just expert life hackers.

“They’re very good opportunists. They take advantage of resources that are available,” he said, adding that coyotes also are good at making pups.

“Generally, if there’s more food, there’s going to be more coyotes,” he said. “If the landscape can support them, they’re going to be there.”

But coyotes don’t stick to just the food pyramid, as scat inspectors found over the course of the study. Some of the more bizarre items found in their poop were baseball leather, stuffed-animal parts, a finger puppet, bits of broken glass, a condom and, ironically, a dog-poop bag.

Whiskers tell us even more

A coyote’s poop alone doesn’t give the full scope of their diet. A lot of easily digestible materials, including meat and dairy products, gets absorbed in the magical process of digestion. But there are other ways to see what coyotes are eating.

That’s where Cal State Northridge graduate student Rachel Larson lends her expertise. She has a bachelor of science degree in zoology, is pursuing a master’s in biology and is one of the lead volunteers on the NPS urban coyote project, focusing on diet study

“A delicious Egg Sausage McMuffin isn’t easy to recognize in poop,” Larson said. “However, in the United States, most of the food we consume has corn in it in some way.”

That corn contains noticeably higher amounts of carbon-13, an isotope that weighs more than a typical carbon atom. So when a coyote eats food with lots of corn or its by-products in it, that carbon-13 gets absorbed into their bodies, including their whiskers.

Larson runs collected coyote whiskers through a mass spectrometer, which allows her to detect the amount of that isotope, showing her how much human food coyotes are eating. And often, it’s a lot.

“What was surprising was how much urban coyotes relied on human garbage … it constituted 80 percent of their diet!” she said. “We would be missing a significant amount of human food if we just used scat analysis alone.”

What can be done

So, LA’s most urban coyotes are getting a majority of their food from garbage left by humans. And if they’re not eating our trash, many are eating fruit that falls from trees and plants that humans introduced to the region.

“We provide a huge amount of their food to them,” Brown said. “We need to realize that we are responsible for them being in our neighborhoods and we need to be dealing with that situation if we don’t want them there.”

The problem with consuming garbage around homes and business's where people
put out rat poison........Photo of a coyote that died of anticoagulant poisoning.  This picture is graphic but is the bottom line for the effects these poisons have on some species. Outwardly, the coyote looks healthy and unharmed. However, when the animal is dissected for autopsy, we find excessive amounts of free-blood in the abdominal and thoracic cavities. In this picture, the blood has spilled out of the coyote when it was cut open.---10 days after ingesting the poison, the coyote can die.

And now that researchers have a good sense of what coyotes are eating, Brown hopes local residents can be educated and empowered to reduce the unnatural resources the animals take advantage of.

For starters, Angelenos can remove food sources, which could mean getting rid of ornamental fruit-bearing trees or “being very adamant about making sure there’s no fruit hitting the ground,” he said. That also means securing and reducing garbage, keeping streets free of litter and not leaving pet food – or pets – outside.

But “the worst kind of feeding” that happens is when humans intentionally feed coyotes, Brown said. He has seen people “giving resources we shouldn’t be providing,” by leaving pet food bowls out for wildlife, throw leftover food to coyotes in parks – even tossing burgers to them. That near-hand-feeding behavior is dangerous for coyotes, and potentially for people, too.

“The coyotes start getting to where they expect food directly from somebody,” he said, “so they come up to people and then they end up getting a little too pushy and end up biting somebody.”

Brown also recommended Angelenos look for ways to reduce cover by removing some vegetation and keeping yards free of debris, allowing coyotes fewer places to hide.

About 100 scat samples still need to be dissected, Brown said, which should be done in the next couple weeks. After that, he and his team will write up their findings and work to get them published in a scientific journal.

Their findings also will be used locally by the National Park Service to educate the public about coyote behavior and what steps can be taken to deter them from coming in neighborhoods.

But, as Brown noted, it’s impossible for every part of LA to be coyote-free.

“Coyotes are going to live amongst us,” he said. “It’s going to occur. They’ve already adapted and they can live quite well in our neighborhoods and in our urban environments.”
------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nps.gov/samo/learn/news/two-year-coyote-scat-project-ends-with-over-3-000-specimens-collected.htm

NEWS RELEASE

Two Year Coyote Scat 

Project Ends with

 Over 3,000 Specimens

 Collected

Subscribe  | What is RSS

Date: March 8, 2019 Anna Beatrice Cholo 

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. -- A two-year National Park 
Service research study of scat, 

aka poop, that focused on what coyotes eat in urban 
Los Angeles, is culminating with

 a “scat party” Saturday morning at the Audubon 
Center at Debs Park (March 9). 

Volunteers will dissect the final samples and then
 celebrate their participation in the

 project with tacos.

The project may be the first time a coyote’s diet
is being studied in downtown Los Angeles,
 and it is expected to yield information about the
 basic ecology of urban coyotes, which it is
 hoped will assist residents and policymakers
 in making informed decisions regarding coyote
management.

Volunteers and interns were at the heart
 of
 this study, said National Park Service
biologist
 Justin Brown who led the research.

“Without them, we could not have collected
 and dissected more than 3,200 scats,” Brown
said. “They were out there picking up scat
 along predetermined scat lines from Beverly
 Hills
 to Boyle Heights, Westlake to Lincoln Heights.
 They put a lot of time into this work.”

To compare diets, researchers also collected
scat throughout the Conejo Valley suburbs,
 which includes the city of Thousand Oaks,
 and the adjacent natural habitat. They attended
 trainings and analysis workshops to learn
 proper scat collection procedures that were held
 at the Audubon Center at Debs Park. Some
also volunteered for the analysis team that
 helped examine the scat contents, a one- to
 two-day commitment per month.

The main question posed by the study is: what 
do urban coyotes, who deal with concrete,

traffic, people, and fewer natural areas, actually
eat relative to their suburban cousins?
Thus far, it seems like Los Angeles coyotes’
favorite meals consist of fruits from ornamental
trees, rabbits, insects, cats, pocket gophers, and
 human foods that were not disposed o
f properly. Analyses are not complete, but the table
 below gives a preliminary idea of what
coyotes in the different regions are eating.

What are coyotes eating in the City of Los
 Angeles and in the suburbs of L.A.

	City/suburb
Human and pet foods	26%  8%
Rabbits	18%  48%
Pocket gophers	9%    13%
Ornamental fruits	26%    24%
Insects	19%    15%
Domestic cats	20%       4%

During monthly scat parties, community
 scientists dissected “clean” scat that had
 been
 thoroughly washed and “baked.”

“In fact, the scat is so clean that at some
 stage you have to ask, is this even scat anymore?”
 joked Brown.

The volunteers were tasked

 with dumping the bag’s contents onto a paper towel
 and then
separating insect parts from animal parts and plant
 parts from the human related materials.
 Most do the work without gloves because it didn’t
 take long for them to learn how gloves
are kind of annoying. Animal hair tends to stick to the
gloves, Brown said.

Identifying what the items are is part of the learning
process, and the volunteers were
expected to try to figure it out for themselves first.
When finished, they would call over
a biologist who would then help them identify the
 item. Everything got marked and a few
 days later, the data were inputted to a database.

Another aspect of the research project involved
 collecting whiskers from coyotes that
were recovered as road kill or captured as part of
 a broader study of coyotes. The
National Park Service launched the urban coyote 
study in May of 2015 in order to
 better understand how coyotes are surviving in
 one of the most intensely developed
 cities in the nation.

Using the whiskers, researchers could do a stable
 isotope analysis to examine
 carbon nitrogen ratios. Scat is great for detecting 
hard parts in the diet remains
 like bones and

seeds, but it’s not a good source of information for
 identifying human foods that are highly
 digestible, like hamburgers and bread. Researchers
are collecting these data to better
understand what resources coyotes are using across
the landscape, in areas with high to
 low levels of urbanization, and to provide insight
 into how coyotes are persisting in some
 of the most urban areas of Los Angeles.

The results of the study will be analyzed in the coming
weeks and biologists expect to
submit the results for publication this year.

Scientists at Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area have been studying
carnivores in and around the Santa Monica
Mountains since 1996.

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
 Area (SMMNRA) is the largest urban 
national park in the country, encompassing
 more than 150,000 acres of mountains 
and coastline in Ventura and Los Angeles 
counties. A unit of the National Park Service,
 it comprises a seamless network of local, 
state and federal parks interwoven with
 private lands and communities. As one of 
only five Mediterranean ecosystems in 
the world, SMMNRA preserves the rich 
biological diversity of more than 450 animal 
species and 26 distinct plant communities. 
For more information, visit www.nps.gov/samo.