ABSTRACT

AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY
OF THE COYOTE ON BEAVER ISLAND, LAKE MICHIGAN

by John Joseph Ozoga, Jr.

An ecological study of the coyote on Beaver Island, in northern
Lake Michigan, was undertaken to evaluate the relationship of coyotes
with other island wildlife, and to investigate the behavior and food
habits of coyotes subjected to such partial isolation as provided by the
island conditions.

Daily activities of coyotes in winter were studied by following
their trails in the snow for 314 miles, and by interpreting animal sign
along the trails. Fourteen coyotes were trapped, tagged, and released
to obtain supplementary information on their movements. Two hundred and
seventy-four coyote feces, representing all seasons, were collected and
analyzed.

The winter hunting activities of coyotes were commonly
nocturnal. A majority of the trailed coyotes traveled alone; no groups
of three or more coyotes were noted to hunt cooperatively. Their move-
ments followed nearly straightlined travel from one feeding area to
another, but were not habitual in following a fixed pattern. Ranges of
.coyotes on the island overlapped. Trailed coyotes hunted for prey most
frequently in mixed hardwOOd-conifer cover. Their beds were most often
detected in dense coniferous vegetation. Northern parts of Beaver Island,
which provide a habitat interspersed with open grassland, appeared to be

favored by coyotes, rather than the densely vegetated southern parts.

One coyote which was tagged on the island was later killed in Lower
Michigan, illustrating that ccyotes possess the potential to diSperse
from the island.

The feeding habits of the island coyotes were found to change
from a highly carnivorous winter and spring diet to consistent
utilization of plant fruits and insect prey during the summer and autumn.
WhLLe-tailed deer killed or crippled by deer hunters proved to be the
coyote's primary winter food; only one of 19 deer carcasses found on
the island was killed by coyotes. Snowshoe hares and muskrat remains were
the most commonly detected mammalian item in coyote feces collected
during the spring, summer, and autumn. Newborn deer fawn residues,
frequently identified in coyote feces during June, could not be dis-
tinguished as carrion or fresh kills. Fruits of sarsaparilla were the
most common item in feces collected during August. Ruffed grouse, gray
squirrels, eastern chipmunks, and woodland deer mice were abundant on
Beaver Island, but coyotes did not appear adept at capturing such prey.
The fruits of apple, gubgg_5p., strawberry, and sand cherry were readily

eaten by coyotes.

/
x /
/ ’ . ‘
H /’/ ”’//’ .
”l ‘ ,r' ’r / ’1’], /

“___,‘/ L .«’ /

, /

/ {O _ / ‘ ,/

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The field investigations covered in this report were conducted
in cooperation with the Game Division of the Michigan Department of
Conservation. The author is indebted to Mr. H. A. Ruhl, Chief of the
Game Division, for making the study possible.

Many personnel from the Game Division have extended assistance
in various ways. I am especially grateful to Dr. R. A. MacMullan and
Raymond Schofield, for initiating the study. Ralph Blouch, Biologist-
in-Charge, of the Houghton Lake Wildlife Experiment Station, directed
my work and offered valuable advice and assistance. Doctors C. T. Black,
L. D. Fay, and w. C. Youatt supplied laboratory Space, equipment, and
suggestions for the analysis of fecal materials. The following biologists
contributed many services: Jerry Duvendeck, Herbert Johnson,

Richard Moran, Robert Curtis, and Elsworth Harger. Mildred DeWitt
generously provided her time for typing the manuscript.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Leslie Gysel, and
Dr. Rollin Baker, for guiding my program of study at Michigan State
University, and editing the mansucript.

Finally, I am very grateful to my wife Janice, who frequently
accompanied me in the field, and provided timely assistance and

encouragement.

 

 

G,1§S§Cf

If; \VLO’W fli‘

u 3

AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE COYOTE
ON BEAVER ISLAND, LAKE MICHIGAN

By

John Joseph Ozoga, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1963

 

fiEllE‘EIXl in.[[[.l.(ll|l[[[ll\[ ll

A

TABLE OF CONTEYITS

Introduction . . . . . . .

Study Area . . . .

Location . . . .

Physiography . . . .

Climate . .

Cultural History

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . .

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mammals . . . . . . . . .
Upland game birds . . . . .

Methods

Past

X

Tracking or Trailing .
Line Transects . . . . . . . .
Trapping and Tagging . . . . .
Traps utilized .
Trap preparation . . . .
Trap sites . . . .
Setting traps . . .
Automatic tagging devices
Handling and tagging . .
Scat Collection and Analysis . .
Laboratory analysis . . . .
Field analysis . . . . .

and Present Coyote Populations on
History . . . . . . . . . . . .
Numbers of Coyotes . . . .
Coyotes on Surrounding Islands

Daily Coyote Activities

Time of Travel . . . . . . . .
Manner of Hunting . . . . . . . .
Roving . . . . . . . . . . .
Stalk and pounce . . . . . .
Chasing . . . . . . . . . .
Movement Patterns . . . . . . . .
Established Crossings . . . . .
Use of Runways . . . . . . . .
Sociability . . . . . . . . . .

Beaver Island .

Movements in Relation to Vegetation . . . . . .

Interspersion of cover types
Upland hardwoods . .

Mixed aspen, white birch, and conifer . .

Cleared land . . . . . . .
Swamp conifer . . . . .

The Lake Michigan shore line .

Other cover types

ii

21
. 22

Page

OOOO‘J-‘WNNN

18
18

. 24

24

. 25

25

. 25

27

. 27

28
28

. 29

33

. 33
. 33

34
36

. 38
. 38
. 4O

Bedding sites .

Tracking Distances .

Areas of Activity
Dispersal From the Island

Reaction to Humans .

Reaction to Roads
Effects of Weather

;*\ Coyote Food Habits

g

White-tailed Deer in Relation to Coyotes
The Deer Population .
Importance in the Coyote Diet

Deer Carrion in the Coyote Diet

>< Deer and Coyote Relations in Winter

Unsuccessful deer pursuits
Deer depredation by coyotes .
Newborn Fawns in Relation to Coyotes

Other Mammals in Relation

Snowshoe Hare
Muskrat .
Cattle . . .
Gray Squirrel

Eastern Chipmunk .

Woodland Deer Mice

Beaver .
Raccoon .
Woodchuck
Coyote . . .

Masked Shrew .

Red-backed Vole

Red Fox

Birds in Relation to Coyotes

Ruffed Grouse

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Duck . . .
Song Birds
Other Birds

Miscellaneous Items in the Coyote

Invertebrates

Grasshoppers

Beetles

Other Insects .

Crayfish

to Coyotes

O

Other invertebrates .
Cold-blooded Vertebrates

Snakes

Turtle eggs .

Fishes
Frogs .

iii

40

43
44
46
50
51
51

53

64

66
69
71
71
76
78

82
82
85
88
89
90
91
93
94
95
96
96
97
97

101
101
102
103
104
105

106
106
106
106
107
107
107
107
107
108
108
108

Vegetable Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Sarsaparilla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Raspberry, blackberry, and dewberry . . . . . . . . 110
Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Sand Cherry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Beechnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Grass and sedge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Other plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

iv

Table

w

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Record of the number of coyotes bountied on
Beaver Island, 1947-1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Number of coyote trails followed by month - 1961 . . . 30
Number of coyote trails encountered along 23.5 miles
of line transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Habitat availability on Beaver Island, and use by
coyotes trailed for 227.7 miles . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Frequency of food items located along 227.7 miles of
coyote trails, in relation to cover types . . . . . . 37

Vegetative conditions where winter coyote beds were
located on Beaver Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Coyotes trapped, tagged, and released on Beaver Island 48
Tagged coyotes released on Beaver Island and recovered 49

Classification of food items found in 247 coyote
scats from Beaver Island, 1960 and 1961 . . . . . . . 54

Frequency of food items identified in 27 undated
coyote feces collected from Beaver Island on
August 5’ 1962 C O O O 0 O O I O O O O O I O O O I O O 57

Frequency comparisons of the more important mammal and
plant foods represented in the 1960 and 1961 summer
coyote scats examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Records of deer hunting seasons on Beaver Island . . . 65

Percent frequency and volume, by season, of adult
deer in 247 coyote scats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Percent frequency and volume, by season, of newborn
fawn deer in 247 coyote scats . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Food items found along 86.6 miles of coyote trails
on Beaver Island during January, March, and
December, 1956-1958 c o o o a o a o o a o o o o o o o 74

Food items found along 227.7 miles of coyote trails
on Beaver Island, during January, February, March,
and December, 1961 O O 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I 75

Table Page

17. Percent frequency of muskrat in coyote scats per
month, in relation to monthly precipitation . . . . . 87

18. Red foxes tagged on Beaver, Garden, and Hog Islands . 100

vi

Figure

9a.

9b.

10.

11.

12.

13.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
General cover type distribution on Beaver Island . . . 8
The observed frequency coyotes passed from one
cover type to another. Based upon 227.7 miles
of coyote trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Intensive coyote utilization of the Lake Michigan
shore, February 6, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Clump of grass serving as coyote urination post on
the Lake Michigan shore, February 6, 1961 . . . . . . 39

Areas of coyote activity and sites where tracks of
two coyotes missing toes were sighted . . . . . . . . 45

Seasonal variation of the major food groups in 247
coyote feces collected from Beaver Island,
1960 and 1961 O O O O 0 O O O O O C 0 O O O O O I O O 60

Seasonal variation of the primary mammalian foods
in 247 coyote feces collected from Beaver Island,
1960 and 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Seasonal variation of the primary plant foods in
247 coyote feces collected from Beaver Island,
1960 and 1961 O I 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 62

Large buck crippled and lost during the deer hunting
season, serving as carrion to coyotes . . . . . . . . 68

Right front leg of the above deer. Bones shattered
by rifle bullet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Juvenile doe shot but not retrieved by hunters,
serving as carrion for coyotes. Note manner in
which carcass is consumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Example of maximum utilization of deer carrion
by coyotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Juvenile female deer killed by coyotes on
Beaver Island, March 2, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

General locale where coyote feces containing newborn
fawn remains were collected, and where fawns were
sighted, 1960-1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

vii

15.

16.

17.

18.

General locale where coyote feces containing
adult deer remains were collected, 1960-1962, and
where deer carcasses were found along winter
trails in 1961 . . . . . . . . .

General locale where coyote feces containing
snowshoe hare remains were collected, 1960-1962

General locale where coyote feces containing
muskrat remains were collected, 1960-1962 . . .

General locale where coyotes were captured or killed
from 1958 through 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General locale where red foxes were captured or
killed from 1958 to 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

79

84

84

99

99

4 _. .1 I . 1.11 .111 I4! I I IPEr-IME. Eli1.l: i.‘. E. El I. l f. 'II {I .vJ ul— ‘. I I nil ‘1 l I

INTRODUCTION

The effects of predation by coyotes (Canis latrans Say) on

 

the whitetail deer (Odocoileus Virginianus Zimmermann) of Beaver Island,

 

Michigan, has been a controversial issue since the early 1950's. Since
then, island residents have steadily supported the concept that Beaver
Island maintains a large coyote population, and that predatory activities
of these animals are reSponsible for reduction of deer numbers.
Islanders contend that coyotes kill excessive numbers of deer during
winter months, and prey heavily upon fawns throughout the summer.
Furthermore, they assert that because the area is an island, conclusions
drawn from studies of coyote-prey relations on the Michigan mainland
are not applicable to island conditions.

Ecological data pertaining to coyotes on Beaver Island, or
for that matter concerning coyotes throughout Michigan, are Sparse.
I conducted periodic ecological investigations of coyotes on the island
from July 15, 1960 through December 21, 1961. Eight months were spent
in the field to better understand the relationships between coyotes
and other island wildlife, and to gain additional information regarding
coyote foods, movements, and daily habits. The objective of this

thesis is to report these data.

STUDY AREA

Location

Beaver Island (often called Big Beaver) is situated in
northern Lake Michigan; mean latitude for the island is 45° 43' north,
the mean longitude is 85° 32' west. It is the largest of a group of
islands commonly referred to as the Beaver Islands. Garden Island is
the nearest to Beaver, less than 1-1/2 miles north northeast.
Politically these islands are included in Charlevoix County, but Beaver
Island is closest to Emmet County, approximately 19 miles east, and

the shore line of Mackinac County, 15 miles north northwest.
Physiography

Beaver Island has a surface area of 58.4 square miles and is
approximately 13 miles long, with its greatest width about 6.25 miles.
Most of the island surface ranges from 40 to 80 feet above Lake Michigan.
The maximum elevation is 200 feet. The interior of the island is
primarily gently rolling, lacking the prominent bluffs of adjacent
mainland areas. Shore line conditions vary considerably, being composed
of glacial sand, shingled beaches, or marsh. A zone of sand dunes occur
along the island's west side; ”Mount Pisgah”, a partially vegetated dune,
is the highest point of the dune complex.

Sorensen (1961) describes the geology of the Beaver Island
group as follows: ”The entire region of the Beaver Islands is underlain
by limestone, which has been slightly tilted and dips gently to the

southeast. Outcropping at the surface and under water has caused the

2

formation of numerous shoals and reefs over much of the water surface

of the area. The shore lines of the island are rough and broken, being
everywhere characterized by numerous bays, channels, and inlets, and
several offshore islands. The generally shallow water and the nature

of the lake bottom, a heterogenous mixture of sand, pebbles, rocks, and
huge boulders, necessitates extreme caution in handling even the smallest
boats." Sorensen further states, that rock outcrops near lake level,
mainly dolomites and limestones, contain fossils of the upper Silurian

to middle Devonian.

There are eight lakes on the island, which are primarily
shallow, with varying bottom types. Round Lake is shallow, and fre-
quently dries up during the summer months. The north sides of Font Lake
(also spelled Faunt) and Lake Geneserath have firm sandy bottoms, Fox

Lake is firm bottomed, but with a leatherleaf (Chamedaphne calyculata)

 

bog adjoining its southeast edge. Barney's Lake, Egg Lake, Green's Lake,
and Miller's Marsh have generally soft abundantly vegetated bottoms.

The island's chief surface stremns are the Jordan River, Cable
Creek, ananron Ore Creek. A number of intermittent streams also arise
in the south central portion of the island, and flow to Lake Geneserath,
or to Lake Michigan along the island's southeast shore. Beaver ponds

are common on all the streams.

Climate
Climatic records for Beaver Island are available for a
continuous period of 23 years, 1905 to 1928, whereupon annual daily

weather recordings were discontinued. Recording of weather data resumed

in 1959. According to Darlington (1940), over the 23-year period the
average yearly temperature was 42.80 F., the mean maximum 50.80 F., and

the mean minimum 350 F. The greatest temperature extremes recorded on

the island were 97° F. (in May) and -27° F. (in December). Darlington
noted a 14 percent longer growing season on the island than in Emmet
County, Michigan, at about the same latitude. May 14 was the mean date

for the last killing frost, and October 13 for the first killing frost,
thus, a growing season of 152 days. October received the maximum rainfall,
while March had the minimum amount. The average annual precipitation

recorded was 24.66 inches.

Cultural History

The first indisputable record of human inhabitants on Beaver
Island comes from letters of Father Frederic Baraga (Cronyn and Kenny,
1958), who brought Christianity to island Indians in 1832.

James Jesse Strang, leader of a group of Mormons, brought his
followers to Beaver Island in 1847. He founded the town of St. James
in 1849, and in 1850 had himself crowned king of the island. The Mor-
mons were reSponsible for clearing much land, and constructing roads to
the island's south end. By 1854, the human population on Beaver Island
totaled 2,608 residents (Cronyn and Kenny, 1958). Strang was
assassinated by several of his followers in 1856. Shortly thereafter
non-Mormon islanders and fishermen from Mackinac drove the leaderless
Mormons from the island.

Irish immigrants came to Beaver Island in 1857, and in several

years represented most of the island's pOpulation. In succeeding years

 

 

[El-III If nil-El fl. [£.|}|‘r.lll.

the fishing industry thrived; lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and

 

whitefish (Coregonus sp.) comprised most of the catch. Fishing success

declined rapidly with the spread of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)

 

into Lake Michigan. Likewise, crop production dwindled on the island's
infertile sandy soil. Since the mid-1800's the permanent population of
Beaver Island has steadily diminished; from 1,095 island residents in
1910 (Cronyn and Kenny, 1958) the permanent population decreased to
about 200 in 1961.

Today St. James is the island's only village, situated on
crescent shaped St. James Harbor on the extreme northeast portion of
the island. The mailboat ”Beaver Islander", capable of carrying 10
automobiles and 150 passengers, conducts daily trips from Charlevoix to
St. James, from April to January. Fast trips to Beaver Island can be
made by airplane from Charlevoix, and is the sole winter transportation
to and from mainland. Islanders claim there are about 75 miles of "good
roads” on the island. All roads are gravel, with exception of one mile
of asphalt through the village.

Income to the island in recent years has been dependent upon
tourist trade. The permanent population of 200 residents swells four-
or five-fold with tourists during much of the summer. Summer homes and
cottages are scattered along the east side of the island and in the
vicinity of Lake Geneserath. The deer season generally attracts several
hundred deer hunters; fewer hunters participate in hunting of ruffed
grouse.

Crop farming and commercial fishing, once the major island

industries, currently contribute little to the economy of Beaver Island.

In the past several years 200 to 300 beef cattle have been brought to
the island. Thus, much of the cleared land, previously abandoned to
encrouching vegetation, has been converted to pasture land. Other
cleared areas have been crOpped for hay.

High transportation costs of forest products results in
limited logging on the island. One sawmill on the island has been in
operation in recent years, supplying some lumber used on the island and

small amounts to mainland.

Vegetation
Darlington (1940) found the flora of Beaver Island to be
closely related to that of Emmet and Charlevoix counties, in Lower
Michigan. And like the Michigan mainland, the biotic communities have
been modified by logging, fire, and agricultural use. He identified
about 75 non-native plant Species on the island.
The climax forest on Beaver Island is predominately beech

(Fagus grandifolia) and sugar maple (Acer sacchrum); associated Species

 

are basswood (Tilia americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and red

 

 

oak (Qgercus rubra). This type occurs most frequently on the mid-

 

western and southwestern sectors of the island. Herbaceous flora of the
woodland areas shows affinity to that of both the southern and northern
peninsulas of Michigan mainland (Darlington, 1940).

Red pine (Pinus resinosa), white pine (Pinus strobus), and

 

red oak occupy a narrow band of sandy soil west of St. James Harbor.
These species occur with lesser dominance along the east side of the

island. Balsam (Abies balsamifera), white Spruce (Picea glaucg),

 

 

white birch (Betula papyrifera), and aspen (Populus Sp.) frequently
occur as scattered representatives in these open stands.

Most cleared and all farmed land is on the northern half of
Beaver Island. Very little land is presently farmed; more of the
cleared land is in pasture, and still more is abandoned entirely. There

are 10 or more unattended apple (Pyrus malus) orchards on the island.

 

Sandy soil predominates on northern island areas, with numerous exposed
sandy stretches. Low juniper (Juniperus communis var. depressa) and
creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) occur where such conditions
prevail. Where the ground has been burned over, secondary successions
have appeared. On such areas plant communities include blackberry

(Rubus allegheniensis), red raspberry (Rubus ideaus), and low bush

 

blueberry (Vaccinium pgnnsylvanicum). Herbaceous representatives on

 

grassland areas (pastures, meadows, and stumpland) include brachen
fern (Pteris aquilina), cinquefoil (Potentilla argenta), dwarf dandelion
(Krigia virginica), Spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium),

bristly sarsaparilla (Aralia hispida), puccoon (Lithospermum canescens),

 

 

among others.
Northern bog communities are found bordering lakes and marshes.

Tamarack (Larix laricina) and black ash (Fraxinus niger) are the common

 

trees occupying such communities. Common bog shrubs include leather-

leaf, labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), swamp birch (Betula pumila),

 

and bog rosemary (Andromeda glaucophylla). A variety of herbaceous

 

Species are also present.

Areas of peaty soil, occupied by white cedar (Thgja occidentalis),

 

are scattered over the island. Blocks of poorly drained peaty soil

- Cleared

- Upland
Hardwood

- Mixed

Hardwood
& Conifer

- Swamp
Conifer

- Upland
Pines

- Shore
line

@- Inland Lakes and

Ponds

   

Figure 1. General cover type distribution on Beaver Island.

 

Ital: .1 I I I II I
lllllrll [[{r (it)! Irufll

intermingle with larger areas of intermediate drainage in most of the
island's south and southeast area. ASpen, white birch, white spruce,
balsam fir, and white cedar occupy this area of intermediate drainage

in various combinations.

Wildlife

Iammals. Following a study of animal life on eastern Lake
Michigan islands, Hatt §£_al. (1948) wrote, ”Few species of mammals have
reached and established themselves on the islands without the help of man.
The evidence indicates that but a quarter of the species represented on
the nearby mainland can be included in our list of indigenous island
mammals.” He studied Beaver Island mammals in 1938, and concluded that
the following mammals were present, or probably present then:

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) -- UR

 

*Otter (Lutra canadensis) -- AR

 

Red Fox (Vulpes fulva) -- CS

 

*Bobcat (Lynx rufus) -- UR

 

Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) -- SO

 

Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) -- SO

 

Beaver (Castor canadensis) -- AR

 

Woodland Deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) -- SO

 

Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) -- AR

 

*Cottontail Rabbit (Sylviligus floridanus) -- UR

 

Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) -- SO

 

White-tailed Deer (Odocoilus Virginianus) -- O

 

*mammals for which I observed no evidence CS - clear sign of presence
UR - uncertain record 80 - Specimen obtained
AR - acceptable report by others 0 - observed

l0

Robert Tuck, a student from Michigan State University working
in cooperation with the Museum at East Lansing, conducted a small mammal
survey on Beaver Island during July and August, 1960. He collected red-

backed voles (Cleithrionomys ggpperi) and masked shrews (Sorex cinereus),

 

 

not previously reported by Matt g£_§£, (1948).
In addition to mammals noted above, I observed or collected

coyotes, shorttail weasel (Mustela erminea), woodchuck (Marmota monax),

 

 

and house mice (Mus musculus).

 

Upland game birds. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) are the

 

 

most abundant upland game birds on Beaver Island. The present population
originated from the release of 68 birds during the winter of 1948-49
(Ammann and Palmer, 1958).

Twenty-nine sharptail grouse (Padioecetes phasianellus) were

 

released on the island in 1940 (Ammann, 1957). By 1950, Ammann estimated
the fall population to be 100 birds. Their numbers have decreased
steadily since then, and at present only scattered individuals have been
reported.

According to residents, ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus
colchicus) were introduced in 1922, but disappeared completely by 1952.

Six juvenile turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) were released on

 

Beaver Island in August, 1961. Four of the birds survived the winter
and brought forth two broods the following spring. Another 32 turkeys

were released on the island in August, 1962.

METHODS

Movements of coyotes were studied primarily by following their
tracks in the snow. Some coyotes were live-trapped, tagged, and
released to obtain supplementary information regarding their activities.
Tracks of coyotes were counted crossing line transects to assist in
estimates of the number of coyotes on the island, and to help determine
the areas and habitats most frequently traveled by coyotes. The food
habits of coyotes were studied through observations of coyote feeding
activities along their winter trails, and the analysis of coyote feces
collected during all seasons. Interviews and correSpondence with
Beaver Island residents, and people familiar with the island, served to

obtain additional information regarding wildlife on the island.

Tracking or Trailing
The tracking technique employed by Murie (1936), Stebler (1951),
Erickson (1955), Arnold (1956), and Schofield (1960) in ecological

studies of such species as red fox, coyote, timber wolf (Canis lupus),

 

and bobcat was the primary method utilized in the winter study of
coyotes on Beaver Island. The method consists of following mammal tracks
left in the snow and interpreting activities and behavior of the animal
tracked. Regarding the validity of this technique, Murie (1936) states,
”...it is practically equivalent to observing an animal under natural
conditions.“

Upon encountering carnivore tracks in the snow, the first
problem was that of prOper identification. Red foxes and domestic dogs

were the only species present which made tracks that might have been

11

12

confused with those of coyotes. Dogs were not numerous. Nearly all
winter residents resided at the very northern part of the island, with
dogs limited to this region. Red fox tracks, while definitely smaller
than those of coyotes, were sometimes difficult to distinguish from
tracks of small coyotes in fine loose snow. In such instances odor of
the carnivore's urine was an effective diagnostic character, as Stebler
(1939) also noted. The odor of fox urine resembles that of skunk musk
and is much more intense than that of coyotes.

Efforts were made to trail coyotes after fresh snowfalls, when
sign interpretation was considered most accurate. Generally, the first
coyote track encountered was followed on foot, with or without snowshoes
depending upon snow conditions, until the track was lost, the coyote
was jumped or darkness prevented further tracking. The distance any
particular coyote was trailed was measured by tallying paces with a
pocket Veeder counter, then transforming the distance into miles. when
paired coyotes were trailed the individual distance was doubled; thus,
the logged distance was expressed in ”coyote-miles“. Special tracking

forms were completed for each coyote or group of coyotes trailed.

Line Transects
Line transects were employed to a limited extent during the
winter studies, to help determine in which areas carnivore and prey
Species tracks were most abundant, and with what frequency their tracks
were encountered in various vegetative cover types. Kelker (1943),
Quick (1953), and Dahlberg and Guettinger (1956) also used the technique.

They counted mammal tracks encountering cruise lines to estimate the size

13

of mammal populations and fluctuations in their abundance. A total of
28 miles of compass lines, of varying lengths, were followed over

Beaver Island. All fresh mammal tracks crossing the lines were tallied.

Trapping and Tagging

Coyotes and red foxes were live-trapped, tagged, and released
on Beaver Island during the summer study periods, July through mid-
September, 1960 and 1961. Trapping also assisted in determining where
they concentrated their summer acitivites, and what sectors were favored
for raising of their young. Capturing and recapturing foxes and coyotes
provided further knowledge of their movements, along with a more confi-
dent estimation of their numbers.

Traps utilized. Assorted sizes of steel-spring traps, in

 

conjunction with various trap modifications, were used in attempts to
capture foxes and coyotes in an uninjured manner. With the limited
number of foxes and coyotes available on the island, utmost care was
exercised to injure as few as possible. Consequently, a large percentage
of the traps employed in the study were not capable of holding large
animals, and coyotes often escaped from traps. The majority of the

traps used in the study consisted of No. 2 Victor Fox Traps, No. 2

Victor Jump Traps, No. 2 Victor Long Springs, and No. 1-1/2 Victor Long
Springs. Fewer numbers of the larger traps were set on the island.

Trap prgparation. Traps, chains, and grapples were boiled

 

for approximately one hour in a commercial trap dye, then were left
soaking in the solution over night. The traps were then waxed. This

process involved drawing the heated traps through a boiling solution of

l4

wax and water, whereby, each trap obtained a film of wax. During and
after waxing traps were handled with clean canvas or rubber coated gloves,
and kept in a clean well-aired place. These procedures made traps free
of foreign odor, and resistant to rust for several months.

Trap sites. Traps were placed where fox and coyote sign was

 

evident. Trapping sites included grass clearings, sand ridges, sand
blows, the Lake Michigan shore line, and old roads. Garlough (1945)

and Nagel g£_gl. (1955) provide detailed discussions on selecting proper
trap locations. Their general suggestions were followed.

Setting traps. The ”dirt-hole" set, described by Hawbaker

 

(1944), was the basic type set employed during the summer trapping. It
supposedly represents the efforts of an animal to bury scraps of food.
The ”scent-post" set, described by Hawbaker (1944), Nagel 22 El: (1955),
and Garlough (1945) was used less frequently. Such sets are imitations
of sites where foxes or coyotes frequently urinate. Commercial coyote
or fox gland scent was applied at both type sets. Limited trapping was
also carried out at fox dens. In such cases the traps were set in den
entrances, without use of scent.

Automatic tagging device. Limited use was made of snare-like
automatic tagging devices, similar to those devised by Romanov (1956),
to mark coyotes without handling them. Such devices were set on trails
which were frequently traveled by coyotes.

Handling and tagging. Trapped red foxes and coyotes were

 

normally subdued with a ”choker", an apparatus which was constructed
similar to that employed by Erickson (1957) when he handled black bears.

No anesthetics were used. Following rigorous treatment with the "choker”

1 I I'll! \IillIIIIIIIIIII {I'll} Ill. . .{llll [III .'I .[ .[rl [.[.[{l [ [.[

15

coyotes invariably exhibited a fear response which rendered them immobile
for a short time. Red foxes never exhibited such reactions. Numbered
metal tags were attached to the ears of all trapped animals. A few were
also provided with colored or numbered collars. Foxes and coyotes were
normally retained in captivity for 15 to 30 minutes. With few exceptions,

foxes and coyotes always were released where captured.

Scat Collection and Analysis

Direct observation, examination of stomachs, and the analysis
of fecal passages provide methods for food habit studies of animals. Of
these, direct observation, limited to interpretation of sign along
coyote trails, could be accomplished on Beaver Island only during the
winter months. Coyote stomachs were not readily available for analysis,
since so few are killed each year. Examination of coyote feces was the
primary technique which revealed the foods of coyotes on the island
during the snow-free months.

The technique of scat analysis has been used widely in studies
of coyote feeding habits. Adolph Murie's (1940) study of coyotes in the
Yellowstone National Park entailed the analysis of 5,086 coyote feces.
In Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Murie, 0. J. (1935) determined the food habits
of coyotes through the analysis of 714 coyote seats, supplemented with
field observations. Fitch (1948), Fitch and Packard (1955), Korschegen
(1957), Bond (1939), Sooter (1946), Tiemeier (1955), among other, have
utilized this technique in studying coyote food habits in various parts
of the country. In Michigan, Stebler (1951) examined 99 coyote scats
from the Upper Peninsula; Dearborn (1932) analyzed 78 coyote scats taken

from Lower and Upper Michigan.

16

Coyote seats were collected while Operating trap lines during
the summer studies, and along trails of coyotes followed in the winter.
Special effort was made to differentiate between fox and coyote scats.
0n Beaver Island, foxes were the only wild carnivores which deposited
feces comparable to those of the coyote in size and shape. Since red
foxes were not abundant during the study, there was little chance for
mis-identification of feces. Those scats not properly identified were
discarded. Collected scats were wrapped in cheesecloth, dried, stored
in paper sacks, and labeled as to date, location (to 40 acres), and other
pertinent information. Spring (April-June) seats could be only approxi-
mately dated, since all scat materials for this period were collected in
June and July.

Laboratory analysis. A total of 247 coyote seats were analyzed

 

at the Rose Lake Wildlife Experiment Station laboratory near East Lansing,
Michigan. Identification of food items was facilitated by use of a
binocular dissecting microscope. A compound microscope was used to
identify hair, with reference to a collection of hair slides at the
laboratory. Reference was also made to mammal skeletal collections,
supplied by the Michigan State University Museum, and to seed collections.
Analytical procedures followed closely those described by
Mosby (1960). All scat material was examined in a dry state, with
careful segregation of constituent materials. Percentage calculations
were then made both for frequency and volume of each food item, in the
same manner used by Korschegen (1957) and Fitch and Packard (1955).
Volume of the food items was obtained by inserting the material into
graduated cylinders partially filled with water, consequently displacing

a unit volume.

17

Field analysis. Twenty-seven scats, collected in August, 1962,

 

were analyzed in the field without aid of laboratory equipment. This
entailed breaking apart fecal passages and recording only the frequency

of food items visually identified.

PAST AND PRESENT COYOTE POPULATIONS ON BEAVER ISLAND

History

Dice (1927) suggests that coyotes originally occurred in the
prairie lands of southwestern Michigan, indicating that coyotes have been
present in Michigan since Pleistocene time. Since clearing and settle-
ment by European man this carnivore has spread throughout Michigan.

Earliest state records of coyotes come from southern Lower
Michigan. Wood (1922) reported the species in Washtenaw County in 1881;
Wood and Dice (1923) reported its presence in Berrian County in 1900.
Goldman (1930) suggests that coyotes entered Upper Michigan about 1906.
Because coyotes first became numerous in Upper Michigan, then in northern
Lower Michigan, while occurring only sporadically in southern Michigan,
Stebler (1951) postulates that the species invaded the Upper Peninsula
from Wisconsin, Spread eastward, and then across the straits of Mackinac
into northern Lower Michigan.

Hatt _£ 31. (1948) did not report coyotes on Beaver Island
during their visit in 1938. He classified coyotes as "Prairie or
second-growth inhabitants,” which ”...have not had adequate opportunity
to cross, or sufficient population pressure to induce them to cross, the
barriers of water or ice.” The first reliable observation of coyotes
on Beaver Island was by Karl Kuebler (i3_li££,, 4 March 1962), retired
conservation officer. He identified coyote tracks on the snow-covered
ice at Fox Lake in December, 1943. Archie LaFreniere (in_li££,, 6 March
1962), life-long resident of Beaver Island, reported seeing tracks which

he though were made by a coyote in the Hanigan area, during late fall of

18

19

1942. According to LaFreniere the first coyote killed on the island was
shot by Andrew Wuerfel of Three Rivers, Michigan in November, 1944.
Correspondence with Mr. Wuerfel (ig_li££,, 20 May 1962) confirmed the
kill. He indicated that the coyote he killed was an exceptionally large
male, weighing 42 pounds, and that it was shot approximately 6 miles
south of St. James. From this limited information it seems likely that
the first coyotes probably arrived on the island in 1940 or 1941.

Introduction of coyotes onto Beaver Island by man was possible,
but unlikely. Coyotes apparently established themselves on the island
by traveling across the ice of Lake Michigan. Beaver Island is isolated
by broad expanses of water during much of the year, but bridges of ice
extend from the north end of the island to both Upper and Lower Michigan
through much of the winter. Generally, by late January ice thick enough
to support a coyote's weight is formed between Beaver, Garden, and Hog
Islands. By mid-February, ice beyond the islands to mainland is well
formed. On February 7, 1961, several islanders made an automobile trip
across Lake Michigan from St. James to Naubinway, in the Upper Peninsula.
Whether coyotes came to Beaver Island from the Upper or Lower Peninsula
of Michigan, or both, is uncertain.

The Michigan Department of Conservation have compiled records
for the number of coyotes killed and bountied on Beaver Island since
1947 (Table 1). Assuming that these records provide a reasonably accurate
index to coyote abundance, it appears that island coyotes reached their
greatest numbers between 1951 and 1954. Ninety-one of the total 143

coyotes bountied on the island during the last 16 years were taken

20

Table 1. Record of the number of coyotes bountied on Beaver Island,

 

 

 

1947-1962

Shot by Shot by

Deer Coyote Misc. Total
Year Hunters Hunters Trapped Kills Kill
1947 0 l 0 0 l
1948 ”few” 0 0 0 1%
1949 ”few” 0 0 0 1/
1950 O 0 ”few” 0 1/
1951 3 O 7 O 10
1952 4 12 ll 0 27
1953 4 l6 l6 0 36
1954 2 5 l6 0 23
1955 0 2 0 0 2
1956 0 0 0 0 0
1957 0 0 0 0 0
1958 O 0 l 0 1
1959 0 O 14 0 14
1960 6 0 2 0 8
1961 l 8 0 3 12
1962 2 4 0 0 6

 

Totals 24 48 68 3 143/

 

 

during this four-year period. At that time islanders participated in
frequent coyote and fox hunts. The majority of the trapped coyotes were
taken by Karl Kuebler. Arthur Stoel of Charlevoix, Michigan, also
trapped a considerable number of coyotes on the island in the early 1950's.

Several island residents report that they conducted an
extensive coyote poisoning campaign during the winter of 1954-55, using
strychnine in deer flesh baits. In following years the number of coyotes
taken by hunting and trapping dropped sharply, and seemed to reflect a
direct decrease in coyote numbers on the island. Whether or not the
decline can be entirely attributed to the poisoning is not known.

Coyotes were not taken in large numbers again until 1959, when
Jeremy Jones of Roscommon, Michigan, trapped 45 red foxes and 14 coyotes
on the island. During 1960 and 1961, the number of coyotes bountied by
hunters increased, and seemed to suggest an increase in coyote numbers.
However, the increase may only have been the result of increased coyote
hunting effort, since the 1960 deer season attracted more deer hunters
than ever before (Table 12); 475 deer hunters on Beaver Island in 1960
shot six coyotes. Likewise, intense coyote hunting with hounds accounted
for eight coyotes in 1961.

Numbers of Coyotes

While no census of coyotes has been made for the island, it
seems advantageous to submit some population estimates, and notes
concerning coyote abundance. There is little doubt that high coyote
numbers occurred on the island between 1951 and 1954. With a kill of
36 coyotes in 1953, the autumn coyote population probably numbered at

least 45 or 50 animals. Coyotes did not appear so abundant during the

22

1960 and 1961 island study. According to observations which I made, as
the result of trapping and hunting coyotes on the island, from the
frequency with which coyote scats were found, and from the amount of
coyote tracks noted in winter, I estimated that the coyote population
ranged from a low of 15 to 20 coyotes in the winter to a high population
of 25 to 30 in the autumn. During the summer months I searched
intensively for litters of young coyotes, and located two areas where
separate coyote litters were active each summer. In 1959, Jeremy Jones
covered the island thoroughly while trapping foxes and coyotes in August
and September. Jones (ig_1£££., 9 November 1961) estimated that the
1959 autumn coyote population consisted of 30 animals. He further
stated, ”I am quite certain that there were only two litters of coyotes
raised on the island the summer of '59.” Jones trapped l4 coyotes,

of which only four were juveniles which seemed to support his con-
clusion. Roy Chambers (ip.li££,, 3 February 1962) hunted coyotes on
Beaver Island in December, 1961, and estimated that about 25 coyotes
inhabited the island at that time. In general, islanders disagree with
the above estimates. They contend that the annual autumn coyote

population normally consists of 40 to 50 animals.

Coyotes on Surrounding Islands
Because of their small size, other islands in the Beaver Island
group probably do not support many coyotes, although red foxes are
common on most. I observed few coyote tracks on Garden Island (area of
7.8 square miles), and none on Hog Island (area of 3.9 square miles)

in August, 1961. Biologists from the Houghton Lake Wildlife Experiment

23

Station report that coyote tracks are common on Garden in the winter,
and that some evidence of coyotes has been found on High Island during
spring and fall visits. It seems possible that coyotes visit these
islands by traveling across the ice in the winter, and may become

stranded as ice leaves in the Spring.

DAILY COYOTE ACTIVITIES

Information pertaining to the winter activities of coyotes on
Beaver Island was obtained by trailing coyotes for 227.7 miles (217.7
miles from January through March, 1961, and 10 miles in December, 1961).
In addition, game biologists from the Houghton Lake Wildlife Experiment
Station logged 86.6 ”coyote-miles” on the island from 1956 to 1959.
Detailed observations of coyote behavior were recorded only along trails
in 1961; notations on coyote food habits were available from the earlier
tracking.

Field study during the summers of 1960 and 1961 provided
further opportunity to study coyote activity, and resulted in the tagging
and release of 10 coyotes and 20 red foxes. In addition, four coyotes
had been tagged on the island in 1956 and 1957. Four tagged coyotes

have been killed and returned at this writing.

Time of Travel

Trailed coyotes ordinarily started their nightly hunting
activities at dusk and curtailed their travel by dawn. One coyote was
disturbed while it fed at a deer carcass at 10:30 AM, but on 22 other
occasions trailed coyotes were jumped from their beds between 10:00 AM
and 5:00 PM.

Coyotes seemingly foraged more during daylight hours of the
summer months, since they were more frequently sighted and heard in the

daytime.

24

25

Manner of Hunting

Coyote hunting habits in the winter, determined through inter-
pretation of coyote sign left in the snow, were observed to follow the
techniques described by Stebler (1951). He determined the primary
hunting techniques employed by coyotes in winter to be ”roving", ”stalk
and pounce”, and "chasing”. The manner of hunting used was found to
depend on tne type of prey being hunted.

Roving. This method is employed by coyotes specifically in
hunting snowshoe hares. It consists of continual circling and back and
forth movements in apparent attempts to locate, flush, and capture hares.
While I frequently observed signs of this hunting action, it was limited
to areas of coniferous cover where snowshoe hare evidence was plentiful.
This habit was especially evident on two island sectors; one, the narrow
band of mixed aspen conifer growth along Lake Michigan from Green Bay
north to Boner's Bluff, the other patches of swamp conifer on the north-
east part of the island. Coyote tracks followed in either area were
invariably lost anong other coyote tracks, as the paths of different
animals entwined.

Stalk and pounce. The stalk and pounce system of hunting is

 

meticulously described by Murie (1940). Coyotes were observed by Skinner
(1927) to hunt for mice in a similar manner.

On the island, coyotes utilized this technique primarily to
capture woodland deer mice and masked shrews. However, the practice
probably serves as means to capture most small mammals. Stebler (1951)
also denotes the stalk and pounce as being employed by coyotes to

capture roosting ruffed grouse in winter. Sixteen mice and two masked

 

.Ii.lllllllli‘l - III I

 

26

shrews were killed by coyotes that I trailed on Beaver Island, using
this method of hunting. Attempts were considered successful when the
mouse carcass, blood, or fur were discovered at the site. However,
small mammals are frequently ingested whole (Sperry, 1941), leaving
little evidence of the kill. lThus, greater success may actually have

been attained.

27

Chasing. Stebler (1951) denotes chasing as the coyote hunting
technique for capturing deer, but states that stalking is probably
involved until the deer is jumped. During the Beaver Island winter
tracking study coyotes were never observed to actually stalk deer. They
showed no signs of selecting areas of deer concentration as favored
hunting grounds. When they traveled deer yards they generally passed
directly through without devoting any noticeable effort to locate deer.
On three occasions trailed coyotes appeared to come upon deer entirely
by accident, and then gave chase when the surprised deer fled. Origins

of three other observed chases were unknown.

Movement Patterns

Winter coyote movements most always involved near straight-
lined travel from one feeding station to another. These sites consisted
primarily of deer carcasses, areas of abundant snowshoe hare evidence,
and apple orchards. Deer carcasses were by far the most important food
factor affecting the coyote's winter movements. Coyotes did not follow
the same travel patterns throughout the winter, or revisit feeding areas
in the same sequence. At times their movements followed near circuitous
routes, traveling from feeding station to feeding station during the
circuit. On other occasions coyotes were found to travel 2 or 3 miles
in one direction only to turn back and recover the same area. Complex
circling movements were rarely noted, except at designated feeding

stations or areas where coyotes hunted snowshoe hares.

DeSpite the

28

Established Crossings

fact that coyotes were not habitual in following

fixed patterns of movement, they frequently crossed at regular points

when traveling between hunting or feeding places. Crossings were most

frequently observed on northern portions of the island, generally in

conifer cover near the Lake Michigan shore. Frequently used crossings

were also noted during the summer months in open sand areas, usually

adjacent to protective cover.

Island residents often took advantage of the coyote habit of

repeatedly crossing at select points, by watching such crossings while

coursing coyotes with dogs. Single coyotes were shot by Karl Kuebler

at such a site on January 27 and 28, 1961. Another coyote; was killed

by Archie LaFreniere
According to Kuebler
has proven useful in

coyote kills.

In January,

traveled deer trails

under similar circumstances on December 18, 1961.
and LaFreniere, knowledge of such coyote crossings

past coyote hunts, accounting for a number of

Use of Runways
when a foot of soft snow covered the ground coyotes

and established their own runways. Runways formed

by coyotes could generally be found radiating from deer carcasses, but

after several hundred feet the tracks dispersed and the characteristics

of distinct runways were soon lost. Likewise, where coyotes frequently

hunted snowshoe hares short runways were established. Coyotes also

established runways when making straightline trips through pure upland

hardwood cover, where prey was scarce. However, hard thick crusted snow

facilitated coyote travel in February and March, and coyotes rarely .

traveled runways.

29

Sociability

0f the 60 coyote trails that I followed on Beaver Island during
the winter, the majority were made by single coyotes, only 31.7 percent
were made by paired coyotes (Table 2). The pairing habit seemed to
increase from January to March. Seton (1929) and Stebler (1951) state
that coyote pairs, rather than lone traveling animals, are the general
rule during the winter. Stebler found that coyote pairs made 53 percent
of the coyote trails which he encountered in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan.

I attempted to determine the percentage of coyotes which were
paired on the island in March by examining coyote tracks that intercepted
line transects crossing the island (Table 3). Only 22.2 percent of 72
coyote trails encountered along 23.5 miles of transects were of paired
coyotes. However, this figure is certainly erroneous. On March 13th
line transects traversed an area where coyotes were intensively hunting
for snowshoe hares. Tracks of coyotes criss-crossed the area, and
designation of paired and single tracks was extremely difficult. On
March 10th transects traversed only upland hardwoods, which coyote pairs
rarely traveled. The transect completed on March 12th probably provided
the most accurate estimate of the percentages of coyotes which traveled
alone and paired, since the line bisected the island, and crossed all
cover types.

Lone traveling coyotes were observed to merge hunting activities
and continue as a foraging unit only once during the winter study. On
January 22nd, I had trailed a single coyote for 3.7 miles when I came

upon an area littered with coyote tracks. The snow was spattered with

3O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Number of coyote trails followed by month - 1961
Number Trails Made Trails Made
Coyote by Single by Paired
Trails Coyotes Coyotes
Period Followed No. Percent No. Percent
Jan. 9-31 23 18 78.3 5 21.7
Feb. 1-28 20 14 70.0 6 30.0
Mar. 1-15 17 9 52.9 8 47.1
Totals 60 41 68.3 19 31.7
Table 3. Number of coyote trails encountered along 23.5 miles
of line transects
Trails Made Trails Made
Length of by Single by Paired
Transect Coyotes Coyotes
Date in Miles No. Percent No. Percent
3-10-61 3.50 6 100.0 0 0.0
3-10-61 3.75 6 100.0 0 0.0
3-12-61 9.00 14 60.9 9 39.1
3-13-61 6.00 22 78.6 6 21.4
3-13-61 1.25 8 88.9 1 11.4
Totals 23.50 56 77.8 16 22.2

 

 

 

31

blood, and tufts of coyote fur were scattered about where the trailed
individual met with another coyote. Beyond the point of conflict the
coyotes apparently combined forces and hunted cooperatively.

Paired coyotes generally traveled parallel to one another,
rarely more than 10 or 20 yards apart, and commonly within sight of each
other. When snow conditions were a hinderance to travel, they frequently
moved in single file. Regardless of which member of a hunting pair dis-
covered a food item both individuals tended to visit the food site. Under
no circumstances were paired coyotes observed to sever relations.

The practice of coyotes traveling and hunting in groups of three
to five animals, or more, reported common by Murie (1940) and Stebler
(1951), was not observed on Beaver Island in the winter. Only once did
I note where more than two coyotes traveled concertedly. On March 12th
I trailed a group of three coyotes on the south central portion of the
island, for approximately three-quarters of a mile. Throughout this
distance there was an excessive amount of antagonism. The group finally
separated into a single and a pair. I continued to trail the pair, and
in another mile jumped them from beds on a hemlock ridge.

Coyotes frequently followed tracks of other coyotes. They not
only followed these tracks on excessively used runways or shorelines,
but also through areas where travel was not restricted by topography,
vegetation, or snow conditions. When following another's tracks, they
most often followed the animal's progressive movements, not the backtrack.
A pair of coyotes I trailed on March 5th encountered a single coyote
track, several hours old, on a beaver pond. Both coyotes followed the
track closely for 2.2 miles. Tracks of another coyote followed the pair

for 1.3 miles further along their trail.

Number of Occurrences

.pououco mma mama wm>ou uozuocm
muowon voawwuu wwoB mduOhou .moHaE am .oucmumfio

 

mm.1

call

mo.:.

Nolw

 

mash

0 5 0 5
5 0 5 O 7 5 2 0 9 oo 7 6 5 A. 3 2 1
OJ 3 2 2 1 1 1 1..
O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0
f. t t t t C t t t t t C t t t t t
0 5 O 5
O 5 0 7 5 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
O I C O O O O O O O I O C O O O
3 2 2 1 1 1 1i
» pl - I . b p p p n p b p p b b a
if P4 H 4| _ .11 4 u H q H q u q d d d1

 

.mawmwu ouozou mo moHHE n.m- cod:
venom .wmsuocm ou memo wo>oa moo Eoum
common mmuomou aucoavouw oo>uowno one .N owomam

 

1m

 

Percent of Occurrences

33

Movements in Relation to Vegetation

Interspersiom of cover types. Due to their general straight-

 

 

line travel, coyotes seldom traveled continuously for great distances in
any one cover type (Figure 2). They exhibited a tendency to travel cover
type edges, weaving in and out of the adjacent types. Maximum continuous
distances in any one type were attained along the Lake Michigan shore.
Extensive areas of upland hardwoods, and mixed aSpen, white birch, and
conifer vegetation are present on the island, but coyotes infrequently
traveled continuously for more than a mile in such cover.

Northern portions of Beaver Island present a well interSpersed
habitat, with numerous cleared areas. Southern island sectors are less
interspersed and lacking in cleared land. Tracks and feces of coyotes
were most commonly observed on northern parts of the island. The majority
of the coyotes that were shot and trapped on the island in recent years
were also taken from these northern areas (Figure 17). However, freezing
of the numerous beaver ponds, and the lakes in winter provides additional
openness and diversity to the usually dense southern vegetation, possibly
increasing the use of this vicinity by coyotes in winter.

Upland hardwoods. Stands of upland hardwoods, dominated by

 

mature beech and sugar maple associations, occupy about 32 percent of

the island area. About 19 percent of the winter coyote trails I followed
were in this vegetational type. Most of these trails consisted of near
straightline travel from feeding areas between Green's Lake and Lake
Geneserath to sand dunes at Green Bay. Other coyote activity in upland
hardwood cover centered around the carcasses of three deer which had been

killed the previous deer hunting season. However, two of the carcasses

34

were situated near conifer cover often traveled by coyotes, which seem-
ingly affected the amount of coyote activity at the carrion. These
carrion depots were consumed to scattered skeletal structures and hair.
The third deer, centrally located in pure hardwood cover south of Green
Bay, was only half eaten by foxes and coyotes (Figure 10). Single coyotes
seemed to cross upland hardwood stands more often than paired coyotes
while traveling from one feeding area to another.

Representatives of nearly all winter coyote foods were found
along coyote trails through beech-maple associations (Table 5), despite
the fact that coyotes did not travel for great distances in upland hard-
wood types. Most of these items were found at the margins of hardwood
cover, in carrion form.

Mixed aspen, white birch, and conifer. According to winter

 

observations coyotes hunted for prey more frequently in mixed hardwood
and conifer vegetation than in any other cover. This cover type occupies
about 29 percent of the island, and dominates the southeast quarter. The
composition and density of trees within the type is variable. ASpen and
white birch generally occur as mature trees, only occasionally in near
pure stands. White Spruce and balsam fir occur as understory Species,
but on occasion form dense clumps with only a scattering of hardwood
species. Numerous beaver ponds occur along intermittent streams which
dissect much of this cover type.

Of the 227.7 miles of coyote trails followed, 39.3 percent
were in this type. Remains of most winter coyote foods occurred often
along these trails (Table 5). Deer carcasses were frequently visited by
coyotes, and with few exceptions, the remains were stripped of flesh by

intensive coyote feeding (Figure 11).

35

Table 4. Habitat availability on Beaver Island, and use
by coyotes trailed for 227.7 miles

 

r
4.—

COYOTE TRAILS IN TYPE

 

Percent Percent Percent Percent
Island Area Total Single Paired
Cover Type in Type Trails Trails Trails
Upland hardwoods 32.0 19.3 21.2 17.4
iixed aspen, birch,
conifer 29.1 39.3 28.7 49.9
Cleared land 16.6 13.2 16.1 10.4
Swamp conifer twr“"’“fi‘ 9.0 10.1 8.9 11.4
Lake Michigan shore 4.5 6.5 12.6 0.4
Inland lakes 3.3 1.3 1.4 1.2
Upland pine, aspen, birch 2.9 4.3 3.9 4.7
Marsh and leatherleaf 1.2 2.4 2.4 2.4
Aspen, birch 0.7 2.6 3.4 1.6
Hardwood swamp 0.3 1.0 1.4 0.6

Total 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

36

Nearly 50 percent of the paired coyote trails I followed, compared
to 28.7 percent of the single coyote trails, were in mixed hardwood-
conifer cover. Paired coyotes seemed reluctant to leave such cover.

Trailed coyotes visited three prOSpective coyote dens in mixed
hardwood-conifer vegetation, and on two occasions entered and pulled dried
leaves from the burrows. Two other dens which had been used by coyotes
in past years were also located in this cover type. Only one such den
was found in other vegetative conditions.

Beaver ponds appeared especially attractive to coyotes in winter.
Coyotes rarely encountered these ponds without venturing onto the ice and
inSpecting the beaver lodge; coyote scats and urinations were commonly
sighted on top of beaver dwellings. Coyotes which I trailed encountered
beaver ponds 33 times, and traveled a total distance of 6.5 miles on the
ponds. Remains of three muskrats were the only food items sighted along
these trails.

Cleared land. The northern portion of Beaver Island manifests

 

nearly all of the cleared island acreage, which occupies about 16.6 per-
cent of its land surface. Winter coyote trails were followed for approxi-
mately 30 miles over cleared land, 13.3 percent of the total registered
”coyote-miles”. Lone traveling coyotes typically spent more time than
paired on the open land (Table 4). Paired coyotes frequently encountered
clearings, but traveled only briefly along the edges of the large pasture
areas.

Certain coyotes which concentrated their winter activities on
the north end of the island apparently hunted and traveled cleared land

intensively. On January let, I trailed a coyote for 5.3 miles on this

3}

Table 5. Frequency of food items located along 227.7 miles

of coyote trail, in relation to cover types.

 

 

COVER TYPE

 

 

 

Mixed
ASpen Lake
Upland Birch Clear Swamp Mich. Other

Food Item Hdwd. Conif. Land Conif. Shoreegpes Totals
Deer carcasses 3 7 - l - - ll
Deer entrails l 9 2 l - 2 15
Fragments of deer 5 9 l - l - l6
Snowshoe hares 2 S - 3 - 1 ll
Mice and shrews 4 1 ll 1 - 2 19
Gray squirrels 3 - - - - - 3
Muskrats - 4 - l - - 5
Ruffed grouse 2 6 - l - - 9
Waterfowl l l - - 7 l 10
Chipmunks - 4 - - - l 5
Unidentified animals - 2 - - - - 2
Coldbloods 2 4 2 - l 2 ll
Apples __2__ __;;_ _22__ __;_ 1 - 27
Totals 26 52 39 8 10 9 144

 

1.1Il‘1‘l ll 1| 1| llllllllll I II I | || l l llllll III III Ill 1' Ill” It .... I l

38

northern area, the animal traveled for 3.9 miles on cleared land. I
trailed another coyote diagonally across the island for 5.3 miles on
January 27th. It traveled 2.7 miles over the open grassland.

Coyote food materials obtained from cleared lands in winter
consisted principally of mice and frozen apples (Table 5.)

Swamp conifer. White cedar, spruce, and balsam fir swamp

 

vegetation occupies 9 percent of the island area. Such cover predominates
on the south central part of Beaver Island. However, coyotes normally
spent more time in search of snowshoe hares in northern swamps. Coyotes
traveled less in the swamps at the south end of the island where deer
yarded. Coyotes occasionally hunted swamp conifer cover intensively for
snowshoe hares, but had little success desPite an abundance of hare sign.

Lake Michigan shore line. Sand dunes bordering Lake Michigan,

 

stretches of beach, and the frozen lake edges encircling the island are

classified under this general heading. Such marginal conditions, excluding

the frozen lake edge, represent 4.5 percent of the island surface area.

While 6.5 percent of the coyote trails which I followed were along the

Lake Michigan shore, differential use between single coyotes and pairs

was striking. Trailed lone coyotes encountered shore line areas 30 times

and traveled a combined distance of 14.3 miles on these areas, or an

average of .44 miles per encounter. Paired coyote trails were followed

along the shore line only three times, for a total distance of .2 miles.
On February 25th, I followed tracks of a coyote on the shore

of Lake Michigan, in the Green Bay area, for a continuous 3.5 miles before

it entered coniferous cover. I followed single coyotes along the shore

in the same vicinity for 2 miles on February 7th, and 1.6 miles on

February 27th.

1.1!!!! 11.! l_i.‘ull [I‘lll 1'" IIHI.l-Iul,iirllf\l

39

 

Figure 3. Intensive coyote utilization of the Lake Michigan shore,
February 6, 1961.

.J 'g’
s .' ""/J- ,1“
.. _, ._ . '. > ,
. . . , . O I _'v."f~'.'...‘."“ ' . ‘u “
'w” 1w. . ‘ ’m- gm}-
..".- >‘ . x 0‘ y. n' . ‘V‘ A -| .[
-° - 'I'e.

. 2"” _ ‘4'. .‘ ‘ Info. ‘

l

 

.
-’- .’l‘."- f 3" ~ ..

Figure 4. Clump of grass serving as coyote urination post on
Lake Michigan shore, February 6, 1961.

4O

Coyotes apparently utilized the wind-swept shore because of the
minimal resistance to travel. Such areas, nearly snow-free, seemed to
serve as travelways for coyotes between select feeding grounds, and
occasionally between feeding areas and bedding sites. Trailed coyotes
obtained insignificant amounts of food from the shore line (Table 5.),
Waterfowl remains were frequently sighted, but seldom fed upon by
coyotes.

Other cover types. Inland lake, upland pine, marsh, pure

 

aspen-birch, and swamp hardwood areas individually occupy but a small
part of the island. Due to the limited acreage of these types and
relatively short distances that coyotes were trailed over each, it is
difficult to evaluate their use by coyotes.

In winter, coyotes seemingly utilized inland lakes as travelways
because of limited snow depths on the ice. Their trails were followed
across Green's Lake and Lake Geneserath, but coyote tracks were observed
on all the inland lakes at one time or another.

Coyotes frequently hunted in upland pine cover, as judged from
the amount of coyote evidence observed in such vegetation. Snowshoe hare
and gray squirrel tracks were generally abundant in pine stands, and
provided a potential source of food for coyotes.

Marshes and leatherleaf bogs which bordered conifer cover
generally exhibited impressive amounts of snowshoe hare sign. Coyotes
probably traveled these borders in search of hares.

Bedding sites. Forty-two coyote beds were located along the

 

winter coyote trails (Table 6). Of these, 25 were fresh beds of trailed

and jumped animals, and 17 were incidental and several days old. Small

41

knolls or other points of vantage were often selected as bedding sites.
However, the combination of a slightly elevated site and dense conifer
cover was the most common. Mounds caused by up-rooted trees were fre-
quently utilized as coyote bedding sites in upland hardwood cover. Only
two coyote beds were found beneath the protective cover of windfalls.

When coyotes traveled together they were found to bed in close
proximity. On two occasions, February 2nd and March 5th, beds of paired
coyotes were located side by side, forming what appeared to be one bed.
Generally, beds were 4 to 10 feet apart.

Coyotes sometimes bedded near deer carcasses. The bed of a
lone coyote was located 100 yards from the carcass of a young doe in
upland hardwoods on January 30th. Five additional older beds were
situated within a 50 yard radius of the same deer. After trailing a
pair of coyotes for 6.5 miles, on March 5th, their beds were finally
located near the remains of a buck.

Coyotes jumped from daytime beds often expressed the habit
of paising on ridges or other elevated sites before continuing their
flight. When frightened, they generally directed their path of retreat
into the wind, toward dense protective vegetation, or took advantage of
both conditions whenever possible. Paired animals jumped from their

beds always fled together.

Table 6. Vegetative conditions where winter coyote beds

were located on Beaver Island

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total fiumber Number
Number Single Paired
Cover Types Beds Beds Beds
Conifer swamp l7 5 12
Upland hardwoods 9 7 2
Mixed aspen, paper
birch, conifer 9 7 2
Cleared land 2 2 0
Vegetated sand dunes 2 O 2
Marsh 2 O 2
Upland pine l l 0
Totals 42 22 20

 

43
Tracking Distances

By tracking coyotes during the winter, attempts were made to
determine the distance they traveled in a single night. The ideal method
would have been to follow the trails of the animal until it was jumped,
then backtrack the trail until the animal's bed of the previous day was
reached; however, no such circuits were successfully completed. Coyotes
were trailed and jumped from their daytime beds on 23 occasions, but back-
tracking failed to reveal their beds of the previous day. The average
tracking distance from where trailing first began to where the coyote
bedded down was 3.7 miles (minimum 1.3 miles, maximum 8.2 miles). The
average straight-line measurement from the point where trailing first
began to the beds was 2.1 miles (minimum .8 miles, maximum 3.5 miles).

Arnold (1956), Schofield (1960), and Erickson (1955) calculated
the average daily cruising distance for red foxes and bobcats by doubling
the measured distance from the point where tracks were first encountered
to where the animals were finally located; the assumption being that on
the average this distance represented half the animal's nightly movements.
Also, they assumed that the average straight-line distance from the start
to finish of such trailing would approximate the radius of a circle which
would encompass the area traversed by the animal in a single night. This
technique did not appear applicable for use on the coyotes of Beaver
Island. Consequently, accurate measurement of the distance and range

that coyotes traveled in a single night could not be made.

44

Areas of Activity

Ranges of coyotes on Beaver Island were noted to overlap. From
all indications certain preferred areas were shared by a number of coyotes
(Figure 5.)

Two coyotes on Beaver Island provided special opportunity to
study range activity. Each of the animals were missing three toes from
front feet, and their tracks were readily distinguishable. Tracks of
these handicapped coyotes were identified on 24 occasions and mapped
(Figure 5). Based on these records, the two coyotes seemed to maintain
distinct areas of activity. One animal, a male weighing 33.5 pounds when
killed on January 27, 1961, apparently favored the northern cleared portion
of the island. The other handicapped animal concentrated its activity in
the densely wooded central and western part of the island. From these
track notations, minimal areas of activity of the two coyotes could be
estimated at 20 to 25 square miles. No seasonal difference was noted in
the amount of area they traveled over.

In northern Michigan, Stebler (1951) determined the winter range
of a coyote pair to be 17 square miles. Ranges of neighboring coyotes
did not overlay that of the study group. Seton (1929) indicates that 36
square miles is sufficient hunting area for a coyote pair in the summer,
while in the “north“ an area twice as large is required during the winter.
He adds that ranges of coyote pairs tend to overlap.

Island residents report having sighted and chased foxes and coyotes
from Beaver to Garden Island, and vice versa during the winter. Reportedly,
on one occasion a coyote making this inter-island journey in daylight was
run down and killed by ice fishermen in an automobile. It seems possible
that some coyotes and foxes do extend their winter ranges to include other

nearby islands.

45

Figure 5. Areas of coyote activity and sites where tracks of
two coyotes missing toes were sighted.

 

 

------------ 33.5 pound male, killed
January 27, 1961:

A - winter track

 

 

 

‘ - summer track

 

 

 

 

 

O
O
\\\ é;::\:?%; 3 sex unknown, presumably
‘e\\ \Qx_)y)’ / still aIive:

 

 

o - winter track

. - summer track

-Areas Of Coyote Activity-

-- slight

 

.3
E -- moderate
\\

 

-- intensive

 

 

 

 

46

DiSpersal From the Island

Robinson (1951) studied the migratory habits of coyotes in
Yellowstone National Park. Over a 5-year period 419 coyotes were tagged
and released. The mean and median movement of 178 recoveries were 9.4
and 4.0 miles respectively. In Wyoming, Garlough (1940) found the mean
movement of 89 recovered tagged coyotes to be 25.4 miles, the median
movement was 16 miles. In comparing the two studies, Robinson and
Grand (1958) attribute the difference in movement distance to the fact
that 78 of 89 of Garlough's recoveries were juveniles originally taken
from dens, while in the Yellowstone one-third of the recovered coyotes
were adults when tagged. Thus, it appears that the distance of 25.4
miles would more closely approximate the mean distance which young
coyotes diSperse from natal dens. If so, the distance from Beaver
Island to the Upper Peninsula (15 miles) and to the Lower Peninsula
(19 miles) of Michigan occur below this mean. However, it is not known
how adept coyotes are at traversing such extensive areas of ice as
those between the islands and mainland.

Only two of the six juvenile coyotes which I tagged on the
island have been killed to date (Table 8). Both were males, trapped,
tagged, and released on August 11, 1960. One was retrapped and accident-
ally killed on August 23, 1960, one mile south of the original tagging
site. The other, weighing 13 pounds when tagged, was killed in Lower
Michigan on March 18, 1961, by Frank O'Neil in Emmet County, near
Carp Lake (Section 21, Township 38 North, Range 4 West), a straight-

line distance of 35 miles from Beaver Island. O'Neil (i3 litt., 23 March, 1961)

47

reported the animal to weigh 28 pounds, and stated it was in ”top condi-
tion”. This coyote probably traveled on the ice from Beaver to Garden
Island, then to Hog Island and across Lake Michigan to Waugoshance
Point in Lower Michigan.

There is a slight possibility that some coyotes are actually
driven from the island in winter by intensive coyote hunting with hounds.
According to Skinner (1927), if coyotes are severely hunted, ”they may

leave their accustomed ranges altogether".

48

Table 7. Coyotes trapped, tagged, and released on
Beaver Island.

 

 

LOCATION WHERE RELEASED

 

 

Date Weight Section Town Range

Tag No. Tagged Age Sex (lbs.) (north) (west)
36508 - 9 9-12-56 Ad. M 27 11 38 10
36510 - 11 9-16-56 Ad. M 30/ 16 38 10
36417 - 18 9-7-57 Ad. F 25 26 38 10
36423 - 25 9-26-57 Ad. F 25 26 38 10
48501 - 03 7-31-60 Juv. F 10 4 ' 38 10
48509 - ll 8-11-60 Juv. M 13 32 39 10
48512 - 13 8-11-60 Juv. M 14 32 39 10
48518 - l9 8-29-60 Ad. F 19 25 38 11
48552 - 58 7-8-61 Juv. M 9 32 39 10
48553 - 7-9-61 Juv. M 9 32 39 10
48559 - 6O 9-4-61 Ad. F 26 10 38 10
48565 - 66 9-7-61 Juv. F 12 22 38 10
*48532 - 1-29-61 - - - 25 38 11
*48505 - 9-5-61 - - - 26 38 10

 

*Tagged with automatic tagging device.

49

 

 

Table 8. Tagged coyotes released on Beaver Island and recovered.
Distance Length of
Weight When Traveled Direction Time
Recovered (in miles) of Since
TaggNo. (lbs.) from Release Movement Trapping
36510 - 11 Acifl 35 2 South 6 yrs., 2 mo.
48509 - 11 4421107) 11 1 South 11 days
43512 - 13 glow” 28 35 East 7 mo.
48518 - 19 14./.2 27 6.5 Northeast 5 mo.
*48552 - 58 JW, J 10 .25 South 15 days

 

*Retrapped

and released.

50
Reaction to Humans

Coyotes which encountered human tracks in the snow seemed
frequently disturbed so that they altered their direction of travel, or
at times they would back-off and attempt to circle the track. If after
several trys this effort failed they would run and jump over the human
track, then continue along their intended course. Stebler (1951) made
similar observation. Erickson (1955) found that bobcats chose to follow
snowshoe trails of man, while coyotes behaved in the above described manner.

When coyotes sighted human tracks near deer carcasses they would
not feed on or approach the carcass. On January 20th I found a deer car-
cass on the east side of the island which coyotes had been visiting
regularly for several weeks. After I examined the deer, and coyotes
noted my presence, they did not feed on the deer carrion for the remainder
of the winter. Although, they repeatedly inspected the deer carcass from
nearby knolls. As a contrast in behavior toward human sign, foxes
continually visited and fed on the same carrion despite the human dis-
turbance. I had not observed fox activity in the immediate vicinity while
coyotes fed on the deer. Coyotes revisited other deer carcasses after I
examined them, only after snowfalls covered my foot prints.

Some coyotes on nightly forays expressed exceptional boldness
in feeding near houses and farm buildings. A coyote which I trailed on
January let Spent considerable time scratching at a deer hide in an
open field about 70 yards from a house. The animal then traveled to a
small apple orchard near another occupied house, and fed upon apples

within 75 feet of the building. Few coyotes exhibited this tendency,

however, as most seemed to traverse protective cover when passing near

human dwellings.

51

Reaction to Roads

Trailed coyotes came in contact with roads 58 times during the
227.7 ”coyote-miles” logged on the island. They traveled directly across
roads on 46 occasions, and actually followed roads only 12 times. The
greatest observed distance traveled by any coyote on a road, while con-
ducting normal hunting activities, was .25 miles. The average distance
per encounter was .1 miles. Most coyotes were extremely wary when
crossing roads. When they crossed plowed roads, they commonly stOpped
prior to crossing, then ran across.

None of the 48 coyote scats collected during the winter was
taken from roads. However, nearly half of the coyote scats collected
during snow-free months were gathered from island roads. The majority
of these road collected scats were procured in summer and autumn, when
young coyotes were eSpecially active. According to available evidence,

a large percentage of the road collected scats were deposited by coyote

pups.

Effects of Weather

Soft fluffy snow throughout most of January, and at times in
February, generally surpressed coyote movements, reducing the distance
and area traveled, and the rate of travel. Similar conditions prevailed
in December, 1961. Loose snow also resulted in a change in travel
mannerisms, causing increased use of deer trails and coyote trails,
dense coniferous cover, and the Lake Michigan shore line. Hardwood

areas and open cleared land were not so readily traveled. Snow conditions

all 'II 1' 'l' .' I 'l' .I'Iu- l' 1"" l:1tlllllllllll. l l ll lli‘llflll ll'll'l 4!" '1 'l l I ' lltyll '
I {I

52

were never so severe, however, as to vastly impair travel, or limit
travel to areas of readily available food supplies.

Conversely, crusted snow allowed more flexible movements.
Coyotes more readily crossed expansive open areas and large blocks of
mature hardwoods when travel was easy. Rapid running and trotting
movements were characteristic on crusted snow in such areas. Winter
coyote movements were not noticeably'influenced by temperature

fluctuations, other than the indirect effect of changing snow conditions.

COYOTE FOOD HABITS

The food hab1ts of coyotes on Beaver Island were studied throwgl
_Lhe examination of 274 coyote seats, representing all seasons and by
noting prey remains and evidence of coyote feeding along 314.3 miles of
winter coyote trails. Inspection of coyote dens and observations of
coyote feeding during the summer provided minimal coyote-prey information.
Special effort was made while in the field to determine the
relative abundance of prey Species, where foods were available, and whether
vertebrate food items were secured as fresh kills or as carrion. Latham
(1951) lists the following ecological data as necessary before predator
food habits tables can be interpreted from an economic standpoint; availa-
bility of prey cyclic species, weather conditions, physical condition of
prey, amount of protective cover provided by habitat, effects of introduced
species, density of predator pepulation, past and present predator-prey
relationships, and abundance or scarcity of buffers. He diligently points
out that, ”Without this ecological data concerning both predator and its
prey, food habits tables cannot be interpreted accurately, and, as such,
are of little value.“ Murie (1940) emphasized the importance of knowledge
concerning the relationships of the predator and its various prey to the
environment. He stated, "In cases where foodehabits study shows that a
species is eaten to only a limited extent, it usually can be concluded that
any coyote depredation taking place is not harmful to the species. Con-
versely, when the status of a prey species is unsatisfactory it bec0mes
important to determine the part that the coyote is playinr. In some cir-

cumstances all factors bearing on the Species must be studied".

53

54

Table 9. Classification of food items found in 247 coyote scats
from Beaver Island, 1960 and 1961.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freguency Volume
(number)_ (percent) (cc.) (percent)
MAMMAL (221) (89.46) (3,352.1) (62.29)
Deer....... ...... ... ..... (89) (36.03) (1,097.1) (20.52)
Adult ..... . ..... ..... 58 23.48 631.2 11.81
Fawn ........ . ........ 31 12.55 465.9 8.71
Muskrat .................. (55) (22.27) (1,003.9) (18.77)
Snowshoe hare ............ (70) (28.34) ( 863.0) (16.15)
Cow..... ................. (23) ' ( 9.31) ( 99.5) ( 1.86
Other mammals ............ (78) (31.58) ( 288.6) ( 5.40)
Gray squirrel........ 20 8.10 77.1 1.44
Eastern chipmunk..... 12 4.86 29.8 0.56
Deer mouse ...... ..... 10 4.05 47.0 0.88
Beaver ...... . ........ 7 2.83 111.0 2.08
Raccoon...... ........ 1 0.40 23.0 0.43
Woodchuck.... ..... ... l 0.40 trace trace
Coyote (hair)........ 27 10.93 0.7 0.01
BIRD (53) (21.46) (159.2) (2.98)
Ruffed grouse....... ..... 13 5.26 99.9 1.87
Ruffed grouse egg... ..... 5 2.02 12.6 0.24
Song bird........... ..... 4 1.61 9.0 0.17
Song bird egg............ 2 0.80 0.2 trace
Duck.‘ ..... . .............. 4 1.61 11.5 0.22
Barring gull....... ...... 1 0.40 1.8 0.04
Crow... ....... ........... l 0.40 4.0 0.07
Bird, unclassified....... 17 6.88 16.7 0.31
Bird egg, unclassified 6 2.42 3.5 0.06
COLD-BLOODED
VERTEBRATE (27) (10.92) (21.8) ( .41)
PishOCOOCOOOOOOOOOCOI...O 7 2.83 15.6 0.29
Turtle egg... ..... . ...... 9 3.64 2.5 0.05
snakeOOOOOOOOIOO. ....... O 10 4.05 3.1 0.06
FrOSCOOOO......OOOOOOOUOO 1 40 0.6 0.01
UNIDENTIFIED ANIMAL (12) (4.86) (11.0) (0.21)
BoneOOOOC......IOOOOOOOOO 8 3.24 9.1 0.17

F1esh....... ..... ........ 4 1.62 1.9 0.04

 

Table 9. (continued)

55

 

 

 

 

INVERTEBRATE (114) (46.15) (224.7) (4.20)
Beetle.............. ....... .... 57 23.08 138.4 2.59
Grasshopper.. ..... . ............ 59 23.89 63.8 1.20
Bee and wasp....... ............ 8 3.24 6.8 0.11
Dragonfly.... ......... ......... 5 2.02 10.4 0.19
Harvest fly ....... . ....... ..... 4 1.62 2.5 0.05
Plant bug ...................... 4 1.62 0.8 0.01
Tick..... ....... .......... ..... 3 1.21 trace trace
Crayfish.................. ..... 2 0.81 2.7 0.05
Spider ..... . ................... 2 0.81 trace trace
Snail ................... ....... 1 0.40 trace trace
Unclassified .............. ..... 4 1.62 0.1 trace

PLANT (204) (82.59) (1576.5) (29.50)
Sarsaparilla........ ..... ...... 50 20.24 511.1 9.56
Blackberry, dewberry

and raspberry...... ......... 44 17.81 312.0 5.84
Apple.......... ........ . ....... 43 17.41 278.9 5.22
Strawberry.. ...... ............. 19 7.69 145.4 2.72
Beechnut............. .......... 12 4.86 32.2 0.60
Sand cherry....... ............. 9 3.64 157.7 2.95
Barberry...... ........ .... ..... 5 2.02 11.6 0.22
Hemlock cone................... 3 1.21 1.5 0.03
Maple seed ....... .............. 3 1.21 0.3 0.01
Seed, unclassified........ ..... 13 5.26 2.6 0.05
Grass and sedge ..... . .......... 151 61.13 71.6 1.34
Evergreen leaves .............. . 109 44.13 2.9 0.05
Deciduous leaves. ..... .... ..... 68 27.53 34.3 0.64
Wood................ ........... 37 14.98 5.2 0.10

 

56

The procedures for scat collection and analysis were discussed
earlier. Coyote trailing techniques have also been described and the
results partly analyzed. The following sections will emphasize coyote
food habits and coyote-prey relationships. Some attempt will be made to
evaluate the effect of coyote praying activities upon the more economic-
ally important Species.

Items comprising the foods of coyotes on Beaver Island, as
determined from the laboratory analysis of 247 coyote feces, are listed
in Table 9, along with the frequency and volume with which they occurred
in the seats. These seats were collected in 1960 and 1961; 64 seats were
collected in the spring (April-June), 111 in the summer (July-August),

24 in the autumn (September-November), and 48 in the winter (December-
March). Table 10 lists the frequency with which food items were identified
in 27 coyote feces taken on August 5, 1962, and analyzed in the field.
Percentage figures for the seasonal occurrence of food items, and total
percent occurrence of food items, provided in discussion of specific

coyote foods do not include the field analysis findings.

Figure 6 represents the relative seasonal fluctuation in coyote
use of mammalian, bird, cold-blooded vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant
foods, as determined from the scat analysis. These major food groups
follow those designated by Scott (1947), and were likewise employed by
Fichter gt 31. (1955). The general coyote feeding trends depicted in
Figure 6 illustrate the variation in coyote food usage with changes in
availability, namely, the change from a highly carnivorous winter and
spring diet to consistent utilization of plant fruits and insects as they

became available in the summer and autumn. Birds also appeared most

 

 

57

Table 10. Frequency of food items identified in 27 undated coyote
feces collected from Beaver Island on August 5, 1962.

 

 

 

Number of Percent
Food Item Occurrences Frequency

Snowshoe hare..... ..... ........ 12 44.4
Muskrat........................ 9 33.3
Beetle......................... 6 22.2
Unidentified birds............. 4 14.8
Newborn fawn deer.. ..... ....... 4 14.8
Mice (species uncertain)....... 3 11.1
Sarsaparilla................... 3 11.1
Strawberry.... ...... . ....... ... 3 11.1
Adult deer..................... 3 11.1
Song bird...................... 2 7.4
Crayfish....................... 2 7.4
Ruffed grouse.................. 1 3.7
Turtle egg..................... 1 3.7
Bird egg shell.. ..... .......... l 3.7
Apple.......................... 1 3.7
Beechnuts...................... 1 3.7
Conifer needles ....... ......... 6 22.2
Grass.......................... 5 18.5

 

Total 57

 

58

frequently in spring and winter coyote scats, somewhat less in the summer
seats. No bird remains were found in the autumn feces. The deficiency
of bird materials in autumn seats may be the result of inadequate scat
sampling for that period. Remains of cold-blooded vertebrates occurred
with slight seasonal variation in the examined feces.

Fichter 53,31. (1955) revealed similar seasonal feeding trends
in coyotes. They also noted the highest frequency of mammalian materials
in the winter and Spring diet, lower in summer, and lowest in autumn.
They attributed the decrease in coyote usage of mammalian materials in
summer and autumn to increased availability of birds, plant fruits, and
insects during that same period. Fichter g£_31. stated, "The most striking
seasonal shift is the enormous autumnal increase in the frequency of
fruit in coyote droppings, accompanied not only by the lowest seasonal
occurrence of mammalian remains but by well-defined declines in the fre-
quency of remains of birds and insects." Such obvious seasonal variation
in coyote food usage is indicative of their ability to subsist upon a
highly omnivorous diet. As elsewhere, coyotes on Beaver Island are
opportunists, eating whatever happens to be available.

While the subject of specific food abundance, availability, and
seasonal consumption by coyotes will be more adequately covered in later
sections, it seems appropriate at this time to present some seasonal
patterns of coyote feeding activity on the island. Figures 7 and 8
illustrate the general seasonal fluctuations in occurrence of the more
important mammal and plant items in the analyzed coyote feces.

The island coyote study was not of sufficient length to note

many yearly variations in the availability and use of food items by

59

coyotes, but it snould be kept in mind that such variations undoubtedly
exist. Changes in populations of prey species, in prey availability due
to climatic conditions, species introductions, amount of plant fruit
produced, etc., will result in considerable variability in the coyote
diet. Table 11 reflects some yearly variation in the frequency of
certain mammal and plant foods noted in summer coyote seats collected

in 1960 and 1961.

 

60

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

90 i
80 4
1
o 70 i_
E
:3
H
g 60 .1-
>\
.0
a, so i
so
.‘3
c 40‘_
m
U
H
33 30 ._
20 -+~
10 4»
100 a. g, A
90 m
80.;
>.
U
5 70 .. 5.
E3" ,
3 Plant Fruit /’ .a””
t. 60 -t /
5‘ / /
o 50 1- / nvertebrate
g) /./
“ /
5 40 ._ /
U .~‘~‘
E ‘3'
30 _
°‘ 1 /
.1..——-—o\
. ———— ‘\\. Bird
20 ._ / \\
/ \\‘\\
10 . ’O\\\
,. .A / / \
Col 1bloods <::“~
1 1 1 \\I
T I V '
Season Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Number of scats 48 64 111 24

examined

Figure 6. Seasonal variation of the major food groups in 247 coyote
feces collected from Beaver Island, 1960 and 1961.

61

 

 

 

Newborn Adult
Fawn — Deer ——--— Muskrat
__ Snowshoe _______ Other
Hare Mammals

(excluding coyote)

Percentage by Volume
has
c>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20~—
10“
60l

0 so“

a

3

U 40

m -_

H

a.

>, 30

a ._

o

53° 20..

J.)

c

(D

3 10.

C)

a.
Season... Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Number of 48 64 111 24

scats

Figure 7. Seasonal variation of the primary mammalian foods in 247
coyote feces collected from Beaver Island, 1960 and 1961.

62

 

Apple Raspberry, dewberry,
and blackberry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ Sand cherry ______ _ Strawberry
601
_____,__,__Sarsaparilla
E 50
5 r-
H
§
>‘ 401
.0
if}, 30..
a
u
E. 20,,
U
H
0
°‘ 1o,_
0
6011
>.
‘5’ T
3
I: 40.1..
>.
a, '1!-
00
3 2
0
8 if
U
E, 10..
0
Season.... Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Number of 48 64 111 24

SC8CS

Figure 8. Seasonal variation of the primary plant foods in 247 coyote
feces collected from Beaver Island, 1960 and 1961.

63

Table 11. Frequency comparisons of the more important mammal and
plant foods represented in the 1960 and 1961 summer
coyote scats examined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

==r ~===:~ e===:
1.9.6.0 1.9.6.1.
Number of seats 59 52
Frequengy Frequency
Food Item (number) (percent) (number) (percent)
Adult deer............. 6 10.2 2 3.8
Newborn fawn deer...... 6 10.2 4 7.7
Snowshoe hare ..... ..... 12 20.3 15 28.8
Muskrat................ 4 6.8 22 42.3
Cow.............. ...... 4 6.8 12 23.1
Gray squirrel.......... 5 8.5 2 3.8
Chipmunk. ...... . ....... 4 6.8 3 5.8
Beaver......... ........ 3 5.1 3 5.8
Sarsaparilla........... 28 47.5 18 _ 34.6
§2225_sp ............... 27 45.8 7 13.5
Apple ......... ......... 2 3.4 3 5.8
Sand cherry ............ 7 11.9 1 1.9

Strawberry ............. 13 22.0 3 5.8

 

WHITE-TAILED DEER IN RELATION TO COYOTES
The Deer Population

White-tailed deer did not inhabit Beaver Island prior tO
R. W. Bundy's release of three bucks and 10 does in 1927 (Duvendeck, 1958).
By 1938, the herd had increased substantially, and the Michigan Department
Of Conservation Opened deer hunting under a buck law. The island deer
seasons have coincided with that on the Michigan mainland each year since.
Shooting of antlerless deer was legalized under a permit system in 1957.
Antlerless seasons followed until 1961, when the buck law was reinstated.

According to island residents, deer increased gradually in
number following their introduction. A deer pellet survey conducted in
1958 indicated a deer population of about 27 animals per square mile
(Duvendeck, 1958). Current deer population estimates by islanders are
generally somewhat less. Starvation of deer in the winter has rarely
been observed.

During the snow-free months deer are commonly sighted over the
entire island. However, in winter they exhibit the special habit of
migrating to southern areas of the island, which are less interspersed
with Openings, and more densely wooded with coniferous vegetation.

Weather conditions were not severe during the winter study (1960-61),
and deer moved freely from one swamp to another. Southward movement Of
deer appeared complete by late January. Northward movement was noted
early in March, when deer entered the Openings at Hanigan's Corners, and

near the airport.

64

65

Table 12. Records of deer hunting seasons on Beaver Island.

 

 

NO. of No. of Deer Percent
Year Hunters Killed Success
1938 93 18 19.4
1939 80 23 28.8
1940 81 23 29.4
1941 132 78 51.5
1942 189 72 38.1
1943 265 61 23.0
1944 197 66 33.5
1945 227 65 28.6
1946 278 75 27.0
1947 280 43 15.4
1948 200 33 16.5
1949 160 27 16.9
1950 162 40 24.7
1951 165 26 15.8
1952 130 35 26.9
1953 138 30 21.7
1954 132 29 22.1
1955 189 34 18.1
1956 186 45 24.2
1957 262 107* 40.8
1958 335 147** 43.9
1959 425 172*** 40.5
1960 475 112**** 23.6
1961 225 24 10.7

 

* Includes 45 antlerless deer
** Includes 79 antlerless deer
*** Includes 90 antlerless deer
**** Includes 51 antlerless deer

66

Coyote trackers sighted 124 deer along 86.6 miles of coyote
trails from 1956 through 1958. In nine weeks on the island during the
1960-61 winter I sighted a total of 90 deer; 31 were observed while
trailing coyotes 217 miles. The average Of one deer sighted every two
miles during the total 314 "coyote-miles” logged on the island suggests

that coyotes most certainly had frequent encounters with deer.
Importance in the Coyote Diet

Residues of white-tailed deer were the most frequently detected
animal item in the coyote feces collected on Beaver Island. Deer remains
were identified in 36 percent of the drOppings, and comprised 20.5 per-
cent of the total scat bulk. Deer residues present in coyote fecal
materials were analytically separated into adult deer and newborn fawns.
The term "adult deer" was meant to include weaned deer. "Newborn fawns"
included all younger deer. Coyotes were found to rely primarily upon
deer carrion throughout the winter. In late spring they fed readily upon
newborn fawns. The fawn occurences in the diet could not be distinguished
as carrion or fresh kills.

\;0f 48 winter coyote feces examined 43 contained evidence Of deer,
and this item represented nearly half of the entire winter scat bulk. The
number of seats containing deer, identified as adult, steadily decreased
from winter to autumn (Table 13).

~izn spring newborn fawn remains were identified in 31.6 percent
of the examined scats. Summer cOyote feces contained fawn remains with

9 percent frequency.

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Percent frequency and volume, by season, of adult
deer in 247 coyote scats.

Total Percentage Percentage

Number by by
Season Scats Frequency Volume
Winter 48 89.58 49.85
Spring 64 9.38 2.04
Summer 111 7.21 1.01
Autumn 24 4.17 .39
Total 247 23.48 11.81
Table 14. Percent frequency and volume, by season, of newborn

fawn deer in 247 coyote scats.

Total Percentage Percentage

Number by by
Season Scats Frequency Volume
Winter 48 0.00 0.00
Spring 64 31.25 22.33
Summer 111 9.01 4.30
Autumn 24 4.17 2.14
Total 247 12.55 8.71

 

Figure 9a. Large buck
crippled and lost during the
deer hunting season, serving
as carrion to coyotes.

 

Figure 9b. Right front leg
of the above deer. Bones
shattered by rifle bullet.

 

69

Sperry (1941) reported that deer remains occurred more frequently
in coyote stomachs from Michigan than from most other states. He
indicated that there were three distinct peaks in the curve representing
the annual consumption of deer in each state. Those highs occurred late
in winter, in the fawning period, and in the hunting season. Stebler
(1951), Dearborn (1932), and Schofield (1959) found frequent occurrences
of deer in the diet of coyotes in northern Michigan, but concluded that

most deer flesh was secured as carrion.

Deer Carrion in the Coyote Diet

”\Deer killed or severely crippled by deer hunters in November
appeared to be the primary winter food Of coyotes on Beaver Island in
recent years (Tables 15 and 16). On the average, coyotes visited
individual deer carcasses every 16.5 miles; only one of 19 deer visited
had definitely been killed by coyotes.

Coyotes fed upon deer carrion throughout the 1960-61 winter.
Those carcasses in highly active coyote areas were almost entirely con-
sumed (Figure 11). Remaining skeletal portions and hair were widely
scattered by March. Deer carcasses located in cover not intensively
traveled by coyotes still maintained large quantities Of flesh and
remained intact (Figure 12).

Trailed coyotes visited and fed upon entrails from 17 hunting
season deer kills. They generally Spent considerable time digging at
deer viscera, and apparently consumed large quantities.

Numerous otner sites were observed where coyotes dug in the

snow for small scraps of deer carrion, such as pieces of bone, flesh,

7O

 

Figure 10. Juvenile doe shot but not retrieved by hunters,
serving as carrion for coyotes. Note manner in
which carcass is consumed.

 

Figure 11. Example of maximum utilization of deer carrion
by coyotes.

71

intestine, and patches of hide. Coyotes apparently carried away
quantities of carrion from deer carcass sites, but no large caches of
the materials were noted. In most instances small pieces of deer flesh
were abandoned atop the snow, or occasionally lightly covered with snow.
In addition to those excavations made by trailed coyotes which produced

carrion, 59 such endeavors provided no apparent reward.
Deer and Coyote Relations in Winter

KKUnsuccessful deer pursuits. Unsuccessful deer pursuits of 20

 

yards, 200 yards, and 2.7 miles were made by trailed coyotes. Incomplete
deer pursuits by coyotes not being trailed were for 100 yards and .6
miles. The origins of these incomplete chases were not located, but the
results were unsuccessful. Deer pursuits by coyotes were observed as
follows:

February 5, 1961. About six inches of loose snow covered an
inch of crusted snow; the total snow depth was about 14 inches. Tracks
of a coyote pursuing a deer were observed on the island's east side.

Both animals had emerged from mixed hardwood and conifer cover, crossed
the east side road, and entered the narrow band of red pine between the
road and Lake Michigan. The deer had been running, until it reached the
lake. It then walked out onto the ice, which was formed for about 50
yards out into the lake. The deer presumably had considerable difficulty
walking on the glare ice; as tracks indicated that it slipped and fell
several times. The coyote, obviously some distance behind, abandoned

the chase immediately upon encountering the beach. It did, however,

continue to walk along the beach for some distance, possibly watching

72

the deer out on the lake. The coyote then backtracked, and continued
southward along the lake shore. The deer's tracks returned to the shore
about 100 yards north of where it first went out onto the lake. Small
quantities of blood along the deer's trail as it left the lake could not
be explained. No blood, or contact between coyote and deer was observed
during the chase. The blood may have been from injuries sustained when
the deer fell on jagged ice at the lake edge.

February 12, 1961. Four inches of heavy wet snow had fallen
the previous night, adding to the 12 inches already accumulated. A two
inch crust of snow six inches below the surface supported the coyote's
weight. I trailed a pair of coyotes for some distance along a series of
beaver ponds when one member turned sharply from its line of travel and
bounded toward the pond margin. Track evidence indicated that the coyote
rushed three deer which were feeding along the pond. The coyote evidently
made contact with one deer but failed to bring it down; patches of deer
hair were scattered along the animal's trail of retreat. The chase con-
sisted only of a 20 yard dash by the coyote, and no further pursuit as
the deer fled. Just one coyote participated in the attempt, the second
investigated the site later.

February 20, 1961. A three inch snow crust was covered with
a mere skim of fine snow, and coyotes were able to travel freely on the
surface. A coyote which I trailed apparently encountered three deer
entirely by accident. The three deer scattered from their beds with the
coyote in vigorous pursuit, but dense swamp conifer cover seemed to retard
the coyote's efforts. The unsuccessful chase was for approximately 200

yards.

73

March 7, 1961. Base snow was frozen solidly after rains and
above freezing temperatures in late February, followed by lower tempera-
tures. While trailing a pair of coyotes I encountered tracks of a deer
being chased by a lone coyote. The pair promptly became interested in
the pursuit and hurriedly followed. All three coyotes trailed the deer
for .6 miles. The deer continued to flee until it reached Lake Michigan,
where it walked out onto the ice. The coyotes abandoned the track several
hundred yards before reaching the lake. Track evidence was sufficient
to definitely establish that the actual deer chase was by a single
coyote, and did not involve cooperative hunting by the three coyotes.

March 10, 1961. Tracks of a coyote which pursued a deer for
2.7 miles were followed on snow crusted sufficiently to support both the
deer and coyote. The coyote jumped the deer at the southwest edge of
Fox Lake, and chased it through upland hardwood cover westward. The
coyote appeared to by very close to the deer much of the time, as judged
from the frequent dodging and swerving of their trails. While the deer's
trail followed a more wavering course, the coyote's trail was fairly
straight, often seeming to cut corners and shorten the distance between
it and the deer. The deer finally made its escape by going out onto
Lake Michigan ice north of Green Bay. Track evidence indicated that the
coyote relinquished the chase shortly before reaching the lake.

Coyote trackers on Beaver Island from 1956 to 1959 noted only
one instance where coyotes pursued deer. On March 7, 1957, a trailed
coyote rushed two deer which were bedded, and chased them for about 50

yards without success.

74

Table 15. Food items found along 86.6 miles of coyote trails

on Beaver Island during January, March, and
December, 1956-1958.

 

 

KILLS:

l - red-backed vole
1 - masked shrew
l - gray squirrel

CARRION:

Mammal--
8 - individual deer carcasses visited
3 - probably deer season losses
5 - reason for death uncertain

4 - snowshoe hares visited
3 - reason for death uncertain
l - killed by unknown predator

2 - gray squirrels visited, reason for death uncertain
3 - eastern chipmunks, probable predator kills
1 - muskrat, reason for death uncertain

l - masked shrew, reason for death uncertain
l - unidentifiable mammal
Bird--
10 - ruffed grouse visited
8 - reason for death uncertain
2 - killed by predatory birds
1 - unidentifiable bird

VEGETABLE MATTER:

3 - different apple trees were visited. Digging beneath
trees and scattered apple fragments indicated direct

feeding.

 

 

75

 

 

 

Table 16. Food items found along 227.7 miles of coyote trails on
Beaver Island, during January, February, March and
December, 1961.

KILLS:

1 - deer mouse

15
2

mice, species uncertain (probably deer mice)
masked shrews

l - gray squirrel

CARRION:

Mammal--

15

17
16
11

U.

Bird--

7
3

deer carcass visits (to 11 individual carcasses)
8 - losses from deer season

2 - reason for death uncertain

l - previous coyote kill

deer entrails visited

deer fragments visited

snowshoe hares visited

9 - reason for death uncertain

2 - previous coyote kills

muskrats visited, reason for death uncertain

eastern chipmunks visited, reason for death uncertain

black squirrels visited

1 - red fox kill

1 - reason for death uncertain

masked shrew, reason for death uncertain

ruffed grouse visited

4 - predatory bird kills

2 - reason for death uncertain

l - red fox kill

1 - previous coyote kill

ducks visited, reason for death uncertain

herring gulls visited, reason for death uncertain

Miscellaneous items--

5
l
1
l
3
2

VEGETABLE

leopard frogs

frog, species uncertain

turtle, species uncertain

sturgeon

common garter snakes

visits to unidentifiable animal matter

MATTER:
27 - different apple trees were visited. Digging beneath trees

and scattered apple fragments indicated direct feeding.

76

Deer depredation by_coyotes. On March 2, 1961, I trailed a

 

coyote to the remains of a juvenile doe (Figure 12), which had been killed
by coyotes several days earlier. The details of the chase were not
clearly visible, but the kill site was thoroughly marked with blood and
deer hair. Once the deer had been pulled down by the coyote (or coyotes)
it was apparently killed by wounds inflicted in the neck and head region.
According to the condition of the deer remains, the animal was in good
health when killed.

When coyotes fed upon deer carcasses secured as carrion they
always started eating at the hind-quarters and gradually worked forward,
leaving most of the viscera frozen into the peritoneal cavity (Figure 10).
The organs of the chest cavity were eaten next, but frozen portions could
be found clinging to the cavity walls. In the freshly killed deer the
viscera were pulled from the body; the stomach was discarded, and the
heart, liver, and lungs were evidently eaten while the body was still
warm.

( Judging from field observations, one of several conditions must
prevail before coyotes can capture deer in winter with a high degree of
success. Namely, when snow is accumulated in depths sufficient to hinder
deer travel yet crusted enough to support soyotes, when deer are weakened
from malnutrition, or when suffering from other injuries. Similar findings
were reported by Murie (1940), Hall (1927), Yeager (1931), Dixon (1934),
Stebler (1951), and Schofield (1959).

Deer on Beaver Island are not normally confronted with harsh
winter weather, or lack of browse. During the winters of coyote tracking,

snow depths varied from 5 to 20 inches. Snow conditions in March were

‘lllsl'll ' All ‘ Il.‘.l']

 

 

77

   

O

   

.. \\

'-.

  

I

Figure 12. Juvenile female deer killed by coyotes on Beaver Island,
March 2, 1961.

78

most conducive for successful deer capture by coyotes. Above freezing
daytime temperatures softened surface snow while freezing nightly tempera-
tures formed a hard crust several inches thick, which supported the

weight of coyotes, but generally not that of deer.

The snow accumulation of over 3 feet, recorded in March, 1962,,
was an abnormally high amount. Fitzpatrick (in_li££., 29 March, 1962)
notified me that remains of three coyote-killed deer were discovered
on the island that Spring.

Coyotes undoubtedly kill some deer on Beaver Island each winter,
and there is some reason to suspect that coyotes kill more during winters
of severe weather. However, according to information obtained along the
314 miles of coyote trails, few deer normally fall victim to coyotes

each winter.
Newborn Fawns in Relation to Coyotes

inghe high frequency with which newborn fawn residues were
detected in coyote feces collected in June is difficult to explain.
Designation of the material as carrion or as fresh kills is especially
difficult. ’here is no apparent reason to suspect that the high occur-
rence of fawns in coyote feces resulted because excessive numbers of
fawns were available as carrion. Bone structures and hooves of fawns
identified in the feces indicated that coyotes preyed upon very young
deer, evidently during the vulnerable period before fawns were agile
enough to follow the docs. Fawn bones and hair generally comprised most
of the bulk of scats in which the item occurred. Table 14 reflects a

significant decrease of fawn occurrences in coyote seats from the late

79

A A
O
. . Figure 13. General locale where
A coyote feces containing newborn fawn
AAA AA AA.A remains were collected, and
. 15%. where fawns were sighted,
' ‘ 1960-1962.
0
O
A 0
g A
A AA.” 0 - coyote feces
. A . O % containing fawn
O A A
e3
§h* A - fawn sighting
(to approximately
' A “QM" 4 months of age).
A A
AA ‘

Figure 14. General locale where
coyote feces containing adult
deer remains were collected,
1960-1962, and where deer
carcasses were found along
winter trails in 1961.

. - coyote feces
containing adult deer

A - deer carcass

 

80

summer. Conceivably, coyotes could have killed a large portion of the
deer fawns represented in their diet.

\ Workers in various areas report conflicting opinions concerning
the magnitude and effect of fawn depredation by coyotes. Sperry (1941)
concluded that deer fawn remains in only 11 analyzed coyote stomachs
came from fresh kills. Murie (1940) also supported the contention that
coyotes kill few newborn fawns:? However, in California, Horn (1941) found
that coyotes played a measurable part in regulating deer numbers through
deer fawn predation.

Mapping the locations where coyote feces which contained new-
born fawn remains were collected seems to provide some indication as to
the locale where coyotes secured fawns. Similar mapping of the distri-
bution of coyote feces which contained cattle residues indicated that all
scats were deposited within 2 miles of known cattle carcasses. Bond
(1930) found that coyote seats were deposited within 3 miles of the places
where food was obtained. The majority of the coyote feces collected on
Beaver Island were gathered on the northern half of the island (Figures
14, 15, and 16). However, the preponderance of newborn fawn occurrences
were in scats taken from the central island sectors (Figure 13).

Judging from the size of seats which contained fawn remains,
most fawn consumption was by adult coyotes. About half of the seats
containing fawn residues were collected from a road and open ridge east
of Fox Lake, and along a sand ridge on the east side of the island. Of
the 49 coyote feces which were collected from the area between Font and
Barney's Lake, where coyote pups were active both summers of study, only

three contained deer fawn remains. It seems possible that a small per-

centage of the coyotes is responsible for most of the fawn kill each year.

81

\ The predatory activities of coyotes have seldom been credited
with subsfantially influencing deer population numbers. However, Horn
(1941) reported that the removal of coyotes from 160 square miles in
California resulted in increased survival of mule deer fawns. The fre-
quent occurrence of deer fawn remains in coyote feces collected on
Beaver Island during the fawning period seems suggestive that coyotes
may have a similar effect on the island deer herd. This can be no more
than a hypothesis, however, with present limited data. The most applicable
statement regarding deer and coyote relations can be taken from Dahlberg
and Guettinger (1956). They state, ”...it seems likely that if coyotes
exert any substantial influence on a deer population it would be through
predation on fawns less than five months old rather than on mature deer."
A study of the effectiveness of deer fawn predation by coyotes on Beaver
Island could be conducted similar to those of Horn (1941) and Arrington
and Edwards (1951). However, if coyotes are responsible for keeping
the island deer population in check by praying upon fawns, the action
has certainly been beneficial, since over-papulation of deer would

probably have resulted in deterioration of the deer wintering areas

years ago.

OTHER NAKLALS IN RELATION TO COYOTES
Snowshoe Hare

While other food items illustrated extreme sporadic seasonal
importance in the coyote diet, snowshoe hares were represented with com-
paratively high percent frequency and volume in coyote feces collected
from all seasons (Figure 7). Stebler (1951) and Dearborn (1932) reported
similar findings in northern Michigan. 0n Beaver Island, spring coyote
seats were found to contain hare remains with the greatest frequency
(34.3 percent) and volume (21.9 percent). A decrease of hare frequency
was noted in summer coyote scats (25.2 percent), followed by higher fre-
quency in autumn scats (33.3 percent), and the lowest in winter (12.5
percent). Sperry (1941) found the highest occurrence of rabbits in May
coyote seats, and the lowest in July scats. In general, studies have
shown that where snowshoe hares are common they frequently occur in the
coyote diet.

0n Beaver Island, coyotes fed on remains of snowshoe hares at
11 places along 227.7 miles of coyote trails in the winter of 1960-61.

At least two of the hares had been previously killed by coyotes, but the
sign showed that none of the trailed coyotes killed the hares. In most
instances, snowshoe hare remains noted along coyote trails consisted only
of the animal's limbs, patches of fur, or entrails. Trackers found remains
of four hares along 86.6 miles of coyote trails logged on the island from
1956 through 1958. Stebler (1951) reported that coyotes in the Munuscong
area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula had greater success in capturing hares
during the winter. Coyotes that he trailed for about 500 miles killed

17 hares, and located 8 others as carrion.

82

83

Vegetational conditions on Beaver Island, with sufficient coni-
fer swamp and mixed hardwood conifer cover, are inducive to good snowshoe
hare populations. The number of snowshoe hare tracks encountered along
28 miles of line transects in winter seemed to indicate that hares were
most numerous in the conifer vegetation on the northern part of the
island. Hares were abundant on the island throughout the study, most
noticeably during the 1961 summer. Hare sighting success was greatest
in July, 1961, when hares were sighted 61 times. However, the following
month only seven were sighted. A concurrent decline in the frequency

of hare remains in coyote feces was also noted.

84

Figure 15. General locale
where coyote feces containing
snowshoe hare remains were
collected, 1960-1962.

 

Figure 16. General locale
where coyote feces containing
muskrat were collected,
1960-1962.

 

85

Muskrat

Although the island does not provide favorable habitat for
muskrats, and the animals were not overly abundant during the study,
coyotes evidently found frequent opportunity to capture them away from
water. Deer and snowshoe hares were the only mammals which occurred more
frequently in the examined coyote feces (Table 9). Muskrats were detected
with nearly equal frequency in the spring, summer, and autumn feces
(Figure 7). They were less frequently identified in the winter scats.
Spring coyote feces contained muskrat in greatest bulk. The percent scat
bulk represented by muskrat progressively decreased from the spring to
winter.

Striking annual variations between 1960, 1961, and 1962, in
the frequency of muskrat remains in coyote feces seemed to be correlated
with fluctuations in the amount of rainfall, and consequently, of water
levels on the island, which had a direct bearing upon the vulnerability
of muskrats to predators. Table 17 presents the monthly fluctuation in
the percent frequency of muskrat remains in coyote feces and the monthly
precipitation for April through September (1960-1962). Keeping in mind
that the average annual precipitation for the island is 24.66 inches
(Darlington, 1940), the total precipitation for 1960 of 40.36 inches was
exceptionally high, and for 1961 of 26.41 inches was near average. When
I visited the island on August 4, 1962, most of the island streams were
completely dry. Coyote tracks were often sighted along the lake shores
and dry stream beds, where they probably captured exposed muskrats.

Five muskrat carcasses were located along coyote trails during

the 1960-61 winter, but none was killed by the trailed coyotes. One of

86

the muskrats may have been killed by predators earlier in the winter, since
blood was found in snow nearby. Several others were badly tainted, and
probably died in autumn. In winter, tracks of muskrat were seldom sighted,
and coyotes probably found little chance to capture them during that
season. One muskrat carcass was also found along coyote trails in March,
1958.

Figure 16 illustrates the general locale where coyote feces
which contained muskrat residues were collected. The concentration of
such scats on the north and east portion of the island coincides with
areas where muskrat evidence was most frequently observed. Font Lake
probably supports more muskrats than the other island water bodies.

In other areas of Michigan, Dearborn (1932) found four of 78
coyote feces examined to contain muskrat remains. In the Munuscong area
of Upper Michigan, Stebler (1951) found muskrat remains in two of 99
analyzed coyote feces. Other investigators report infrequent consumption
of muskrat by coyotes, and suggest that most muskrat in the coyote diet
is obtained as carrion. Muskrat carrion might be available on Beaver
Island in April, as beaver trappers were known to discard many muskrats
accidentally taken in beaver traps.

The high frequency of muskrat in coyote scats seemed to indicate
that coyotes preyed heavily upon them in 1961 and 1962. However, it
appears that the coyotes are praying upon the surplus of muskrats, and
that habitat conditions are not adequate to favorably support a large

muskrat population.

8/

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Percent frequency of muskrat in coyote scats per
month, in relation to monthly precipitation.
Percent of Coyote
Precipitation Scats Containing
in Inches Muskrat
Month 1960 1961 1962 1960 1961 ' 1962
April 5.09 .71 2.24
10.0* 29.6*
May 6.87 1.58 1.80
33.3**
June 5.22 5.11 1.47 O 33 3
July 3.93 2.53 .89 O 38.1
August 3.04 .57 5.17 7.8 46.4
September 4.61 4.09 3.02 23.0 18.2
Totals 28.76 14.59 14.59
Average percent frequency ............... 9.8 35.0 33.3
Total number of scats.... ............... 82 117 27

 

*Scats from April and May combined

**Scats from April, May, June and July combined

 

88
Cattle

Evidence of cattle was found in 9.3 percent of the coyote scats
collected on the island (Table 9). Five spring, 16 summer, and two winter
scats contained cow hair. In a few instances cow hair represented as much
as 90 percent of the individual scat bulk, but usually the remains con-
stituted only a small portion of each scat. Higher frequency of cattle
remains were noted in scats collected in 1961, as compared to 1960
(Table 11).

Dearborn (1932), Stebler (1951), and Sperry (1941) found no
indication of cattle remains in coyote stomachs or feces examined from
Michigan. Murie (1951), Fitch (1948), Gier (1957), and others, suggest
that cattle are most frequently available to coyotes as carrion, although
calves are occasionally killed by coyotes. Three cow carcasses were
located on the island during the study, and few others were probably
present. In October, 1960, island residents deposited a large cow car-
cass in an area which coyotes often traveled. The residents anticipated
using the carrion to lure coyotes into the area, and retain them there,
where they could be easily hunted with dogs. Despite this large quantity
of readily available carrion, in a select coyote area, coyotes failed to
feed on the cow remains during the entire 1960-61 winter.

Several island farmers have reported the loss of newborn calves
to coyotes. Expectant cows were known to break out of fenced pastures on
occasion and bring forth their calves in wooded areas, possibly resulting
in either stillborn calves, available as carrion, or calves in a state
vulnerable to coyotes. With additional beef cattle brought to the island
in recent years, cattle as carrion will probably become more important in

the coyote diet.

89

Gray Squirrel

According to Vernon Fitzpatrick (personal interview), island
conservation officer, 15 squirrels in gray and black phases were released
on Beaver Island in 1923. The island squirrel population seems to be
characterized by drastic fluctuations in numbers, with enormous increases
during favorable years. This squirrel population build-up was pronounced
during the island coyote studies. During the 1960 summer I sighted only
four squirrels on the island in 60 days of field work. The following
summer, in 75 days, I observed squirrels on 101 occasions; squirrels were
sighted over most of the island. Carl Phillips, a student who collected
manuals on Beaver Island for the Michigan State University Museum, reported
that squirrels were scarce during the summer of 1962. He sighted only
several during the entire month of July, 1962. Whether the severe 1961-

62 winter resulted in high squirrel mortality, or other factors were
involved in the sudden decrease in squirrel numbers is unknown.

Remains of squirrels were identified in 8.1 percent of 247
laboratory analyzed coyote feces (Table 9). They were recognized with
greatest frequency, 12.5 percent, in spring seats, but occurred in seats
from all seasons. The increased abundance of squirrels in 1961, as com-
pared to 1960, did not result in higher frequency of squirrel remains in
coyote feces collected that year. In fact, the percent frequency of
squirrels in the 1961 summer coyote feces was lower than in 1960 (Table 11).

A coyote trailed through beech-maple hardwoods near Green Lake
surprised and killed a gray squirrel on January 10th. Coyotes also
located two other squirrel carcasses as carrion along the 1960-61 winter

coyote trails.

90

Murie (1945) found that squirrels were acceptable as food by
coyotes, but were not often captured. He stated, ”Such animals apparently
are not easily caught and do not lend themselves so readily to a routine
hunting technique for the coyote". Since squirrels occur most abundantly
in upland hardwood cover of the island, and coyotes seem to spend little
time hunting such areas, the opportunity for coyotes to capture squirrels
probably does not arise too frequently. Naturally, the tree dwelling

and diurnal squirrel habits add to their protection from coyotes.
Eastern Chipmunk

EVidence of chipmunks was found in 12 coyote seats; all
occurrences represented but a small portion of each individual scat.
Their remains occurred in 6.3 percent of the summer scats, in 8.3 percent
of the autumn, and 4.2 percent of the winter scats. Only 1.6 percent of
the spring coyote feces contained chipmunk remains.

In December, I found five dead chipmunks along 10 miles of
coyote trails, all were available as carrion. Shrews or mice had evidently
eaten some of the flesh, but coyotes merely uncovered the remains and
abandoned them atop the snow. Chipmunk carrion was recorded three times
along 23.1 miles of coyote trail followed in 1958.

The chipmunk papulation on Beaver Island apparently undergoes
fluctuations in abundance comparable to the gray squirrels. In 1960,
chipmunk numbers were especially low. The following summer chipmunks
seemed to be everywhere, one could ride through upland hardwood cover,
and see five or six scurry across the road per mile. In 1962, chipmunks

were still numerous. Despite noticeable differences in availability of

91

the animals between tne summers of 1960 and 1961, they occurred with
nearly equal frequency in coyote feces from both years (Table 11).
Because of the chipmunk's diurnal and alert habits, coyotes probably

expend little time hunting the rodents, regardless of their abundance.
Woodland Deer Mice

Woodland deer mice occurred in 4 percent of the coyote feces
examined in the laboratory. The winter scats contained deer mice with
the greatest frequency, 14.6 percent. Hair and bone of deer mice made
up as much as 95 percent of one winter scat and 40 percent of another,
but other occurrences were of small amounts.

Coyotes trailed in winter were credited with 16 mouse kills.

An entire deer mouse was found at only one site, all others were designated
as mouse kills because of blood and fur found where trailed coyotes

pounced in apparent attempts to capture mice. While the species of mice
was not definitely determined in 15 cases, I assumed they were deer mice,
because they were the only species identified in the analyzed scats, and
because of the scarcity of other mouse species during the study.

As noted in Table 5, most mouse kills located along winter
coyote trails were on cleared open land. Lone traveling coyotes killed
14 mice while failing on 39 attempts to capture mice (or shrews). Paired
coyotes accounted for only three mouse kills; they failed when attempting
to capture mice on four occasions.

Mouse hunting seemed to be a trait exhibited by certain coyotes,
especially those which concentrated their hunting activities on northern

parts of the island. On January let I trailed a coyote for 5.3 miles on

_I ‘II 1‘ I. lull an" 1‘

92

this northern area; it killed and consumed three mice. A masked shrew
was also killed, but abandoned. The coyote pounced five times in apparent
attempt to capture mice or shrews, but failed. I trailed what I believe
was the same animal for 5.3 miles on January 27th, it killed and ate one
mouse while five others escaped its graSps. A coyote which I trailed for
3.2 miles on December 18th captured three mice while missing on four other
attempts. The following day I trailed a coyote in the same area, it
attempted to capture mice seven times, without success. These were the
most pronounced examples of mouse hunting expressed by coyotes I trailed
on the island.

Mouse hunting by coyotes was noted with greatest effort early
in winter, before hard crusted snow formed. In December and January half
of the coyotes which I trailed either captured or attempted to capture
mice. Twenty percent of the coyotes trailed during February attempted to
capture mice, and only 15 percent of those coyotes trailed in March hunted
mice. However, greater percent success was noted in February and March,
probably because of crusted snow during that time which prevented mice
from rapid burrowing and escape.

Woodland deer mice occurred in tremendous numbers on the island
throughout the 1960 and 1961 study. Peromyscus maniculatus gracilus is
normally confined to forested area (Burt, 1957), but, on Beaver Island,
due to the apparent lack of interspecific competition, occurred in nearly
every ecological niche. Robert Tuck (personal interview) reported cap-
turing deer mice with greatest trap success (15 mice per 100 trap-nights)
in Open areas occupied by juniper. Trap success, per 100 trap-nights, in
beechfinaple (14 mice), in coniferous cover (12 mice), and in marsh vege-

tation (6 mice) followed in that order. A decline in deer mouse numbers

93
was reported on the island by Carl Phillips (personal interview) in 1962.
He indicated that one line of 140 trap-nights in beech-maple hardwood cover
produced no mice.

Sperry (1941) found deer mice (Peromyscus Sp.) in 6 percent of

 

8,339 coyote stomach examined, generally in small amounts. He concluded
that coyotes seldom captured deer mice in numbers because the mice were
especially adept at escaping mammal predators. Murie (1940) identified
deer mice in only 34 of 5,086 coyote feces analyzed, despite an abundance
of the creatures in the study area. Because deer mice did not restrict
their movements to runways, but instead scurried from cover to cover,

Murie felt that coyotes could not capture them as readily as Microtus which
confined their movements to fixed runways. This apparent inability of
coyotes to capture deer mice consistently is probably why the rodents did
not occur in the diet of Beaver Island coyotes with greater frequency,

despite their overwhelming numbers, and occurrence in all cover types.
Beaver

Beaver are common on much of Beaver Island, particularly along
streams through mixed aSpen-conifer stands on the island's east side. Six
or eight trappers who participate in beaver trapping each Spring rarely
complete the season without their individual limit of eight beaver.

Remains of beaver occurred in one Spring scat and six summer
coyote scats collected on the island. Beaver fur and bone comprised nearly
the entire bulk of these seats. Two of the summer occurrences consisted
of remnants from juvenile animals, as determined by bone fragments, teeth,
and claws. Since preferred coyote hunting areas seemed to coincide rather

closely with beaver dwellings, the Opportunity for coyotes to capture

94
young beaver must certainly have arisen, and probably accounted for the
representation of juvenile beaver in the examined feces.

While coyotes which I trailed in winter showed considerable
interest in beaver trails leading away from water, it is uncertain whether
they would attempt to capture adult beaver, or whether they are capable.
Sperry (1941) found beaver remains in only one coyote stomach of over 8,000
which he examined; from field observations he concluded that a lone coyote
would have an elusive quarry if attacking an adult beaver near a stream.
According to Young and Jackson (1951), “beavers are notoriously lacking
in defense of themselves when attacked by predators”. Murie, O. J.,

(1935) and Murie, A., (1940) reported beaver remains in examined coyote
feces, but failed to provide field evidence as to how coyotes may have
obtained beaver flesh.

On Beaver Island, as elsewhere, trappers were noted to skin
beaver in the field, and leave the bulky carcasses rather than transport
them for any distance. Small beavers were known to be discarded by trappers
because of their low value. Such practices would tend to provide signi-

ficant quantities of beaver flesh as carrion for coyotes.

Raccoon

Remains of raccoon have been found in stomachs and feces of
coyotes (Fitch and Packard, 1955, and Sperry, 1941), generally in small
amounts. But, Stains (1956) states that coyotes and owls feed upon rac-
coons more frequently than any other animals. Raccoon fur comprised about
90 percent of one coyote scat collected on Beaver Island during the spring
of 1961. Due to the presently sparse island raccoon population their

occurrence in the coyote diet can be considered uncommon.

95

According to information obtained from islanders, four to six
raccoons were introduced on the island in 1956. Since then they have
increased, and become Sparsely scattered over much of the island, with
evident concentrations in beaver pond areas. Jones (ig'li££., 9 November
1961) reported that he captured and released two raccoons on the island
while trapping foxes and coyotes in 1959. I trapped and tagged an adult
female raccoon in August, 1961. These are the only available records of
raccoons taken on the island following their introduction.

It is difficult to determine what will be the outcome of coon
introductions on Beaver Island. According to track evidence, their
numbers have been increasing. The cover requirements of mature denning
trees and a permanent water supply along with adequate food in form of
crayfish, frog, snake, mollusk, beechnut, etc., seem to be met on the
island, and might be an indication that a coon population could flourish.
Corn, often considered the favorite plant food of the coon is rarely
planted on the island. Since few raccoon would probably be taken through
trapping and hunting in future years, coyotes might offer one of the few

immediate checks on their increasing numbers.

Woodchuck

Grier (1957) and Korschgen (1957) reported infrequent occurrences
of woodchuck in the diet of Kansas and Missouri coyotes. However, in
Michigan, Sperry (1941) found woodchuck remains in 4 of 12 coyote stomachs
examined in May, and Dearborn (1932) noted woodchuck in 4.55 percent of
the coyote feces he collected from Marquette, Roscommon, and Osceola

Counties. Marmots were not common on Beaver Island during the study,

96
probably accounting for their rare occurrence in the coyote diet. Hair
of woodchuck occurred as a trace amount in one summer coyote scat collected
on the island. Unless woodchuck numbers increase considerably on Beaver

Island it is doubtful that they will add significantly to the coyote diet.
Coyote

Hair from coyotes was found in 27 coyote scats. Since 20 occur-
rences were in early summer scats, when coyotes were still shedding winter
fur, and all occurrences were of extremely small quantities, often only
several hairs, I tend to attribute the presence to accidental ingestion.
Murie (1935) and Young and Jackson (1951) indicate that coyotes do not
hesitate to eat flesh of their own kind. However, no coyote carcasses

were known to be available as carrion on Beaver Island during the study.
Masked Shrew

No evidence of masked shrews was discovered in the 274 coyote
scats examined, despite the fact that their remains were noted along win-
ter coyote trails (Tables 15 and 16). On January let, a coyote trailed
into upland hardwoods killed and evidently devoured portions of a masked
shrew, as only parts of the shrew's crushed body were found. The following
day, a pair of coyotes which I trailed captured a shrew beneath a clump
of junipers in an open area. Judging from tracks at the site, they spent
considerable time playing with their prey before killing and abandoning
it. Trailed coyotes also uncovered a partially decomposed shrew in
December. Tracking data from January, 1958, showed that coyotes killed
then discarded two shrews. Island field observations seem to support the

consensus of Sperry (1941), Stebler (1951), Murie (1940), and Grier (1957),

that shrews are unpalatable to coyotes.

97
Red-backed Vole

Hatt g£_§l, (1948), after fairly extensive mammal collecting on
Lake Michigan Islands, did not record red-backed voles on Beaver Island
in 1938. In January, 1958, one red-backed vole was found killed and
abandoned by a trailed coyote (Table 15). Robert Tuck collected only two
such specimens in 1960, after extensive snap-trapping on the island. In
1962, however, Carl Phillips (personal interview) reported that the voles
were fairly numerous. He had greater success capturing red-backed voles
than woodland deer mice on the island.

Sperry (1941) and Stebler (1951) noted red-backed voles as locally
important in the coyote diet at Munuscong State Park in Michigan's Upper
Peninsula. If these rodents maintain their numbers on Beaver Island, as
observed in 1962, they could become an important item in the diet of the

island coyotes.
Red Fox

In 1959, J. Jones (in_li££., 9 November 1961) trapped 45 red
foxes on Beaver Island, and estimated that the total population consisted
of about 65 animals. He noted that foxes occurred over the entire island
(Figure 18). In 1960 and 1961, I live-trapped, tagged, and released 16
foxes on the island (Table 18). At this time foxes did not appear to
travel the entire island, nor did they appear as numerous as Jones pro-
posed. I rarely observed fox tracks on the central and north central part
of the island, where coyote evidence was most common. Fox sign was most

noticeable along the southern and western margins of the island, and most

of the foxes which I tagged were trapped in these areas (Figure 18).

98

No evidence of red fox was detected in the 274 coyote feces
examined. However, definite antagonism between coyotes and foxes was
noted, and reported. On January 30th, a coyote that I was trailing pur-
sued a fox for about 40 yards. The animals encountered each other at the
edge of a large opening. Drifted snow was crusted enough to support the
fox's weight, but the coyote plunged shoulder deep into the snow and soon
abandoned the chase. On August 18, 1961, a coyote killed a fox which was
caught in a steel-trap at Green Bay. The throat of the fox was lacerated
and tooth punctures penetrated the animal's skull, but no flesh was eaten
from the carcass.

Karl Kuebler (in_lit£,, 4 March 1962) reported that coyotes
killed two foxes in his traps during past years. He also related an
instance where coyotes killed a fox on the ice of Font Lake. Kuebler,
who served as the Conservation Department Fire Officer on Beaver Island
for 14 years, stated that foxes were more abundant during years when low
coyote populations existed on the island. It seems possible that compe-
tition for food and antagonism between foxes and coyotes resulted in

the segregation of their activities during 1960 and 1961.

99

O C
O
. . C 1'
C
'. Q .? Figure 17. General locale
. where coyotes were captured
. 0 g or killed from 1958 through
1962.
U
'. .
. .
. ...
O.
C

Figure 18. General locale
where red foxes were captured
or killed from 1958 to 1962.

Q --site where fox was
killed in 1959.

A --site where fox was
trapped and tagged,

recaptured, or killed in
1960 and 1961.

 

100

Table 18. Red foxes tagged on Beaver, Garden and Hog Islands.

 

 

LOCATION WHERE TAKEN

 

 

Weight Section Town Range
ng No. Date Age Sex (lbsg) (north)(west)

6430 7-24-60 Imm. F - 19 37 10
6431 7-27-60 Mat. M - 25 38 11
48504 8- 6-60 ” M - 21 39 10
48514 8-24-60 ” F - 25 38 11
48516 8-28-60 Imm. M 8.75 10 37 10
48521 8-31-60 ” M 8.25 25 38 11
48548 6-17-61 Mat. M - 22 39 10

" 12-18-61 " M - 23 39 10(a)
36433 6-18-61 Imm. M 4.75 15 37 10

” 6-20-61 ” M 4.75 15 37 10(b)
36436 6-19-61 ” F 3.75 22 39 10
36438 6-24-61 " M 5.00 15 37 10

" 7-12-61 ” M 6.50 20 37 10(c)

" 7-26-61 " M - 20 37 10(d)
36440 6-20-61 ” F 3.50 22 39 10

” 7- 9-61 ” F 5.00 14 39 10(c)
48550 6-21-61 Mat. M - 15 37 10

” 6-26-61 ” M - 15 37 10(f)

” 7-25-61 " M - 20 37 10(g)
48546 6-30-61 Imm. F 6.25 20 37 10
48551 7- 3-61 " M 7.50 20 37 10

" 7-11-61 ” M 7.50 20 37 10(h)
36442 7-16-61 Mat. F - 19 37 10

” 9- 5-62 ” F - 29 39 10(1)

" 5- 5-61 ” F - 34 39 10(j)
36445 7-19-61 " F 8.00 29 39 10
36447 7-31-61 ” F - 2 39 8
36449 7-31-61 ” M - 2 39 8
36519 8-18-61 Imm. F 7.25 19 37 10
36517 8-23-61 ” F 6.00 26 40 10

 

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(s)
(h)
(i)
(j)

- shot 1.75 miles east of tag site

- retrapped at same den site

- retrapped 1.50 miles southeast of tag site

- retrapped 1.50 miles southeast of tag site

- released on Garden Island after 20 days in captivity
- retrapped .75 miles east of tag site

- retrapped 1.50 miles southwest of tag site

- retrapped at same site

- retrapped 11.5 miles north of tag site

- shot raiding chickens, 9.0 miles north of tag site

BIRDS IN RELATION TO COYOTES
Ruffed Grouse

Ammann and Palmer (1958) state that the island grouse population
reached phenomenal numbers in 1954, five years after their introduction.
The population density has since then decreastd, but still remains higher
than the average density for the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

During the 1956-57 winter coyote tracks flushed 34 grouse, or
an average of one bird for every 1.9 miles of trail. According to Moran
(1962), ruffed grouse reached their lowest numbers on Beaver Island, since
their phenomenal abundance of 1954, during the winter of 1958-59. The
island grouse population was apparently on the upswing in their cycle of
abundance by 1961. I flushed 73 ruffed grouse while trailing coyotes, an
average of one bird per 2.9 miles of trail, in 1961.

Noticeable differences in ruffed grouse abundance occurred on
Beaver Island between the two summer study periods. From July 15 through
September 15, 1960, I sighted a total of 37 ruffed grouse. Only six broods
were located. In 1961, from June 15 through September 8, I observed 199
ruffed grouse, and located 30 broods. Speaking in regard to the 1961 grouse
population on the island, Moran (1962) wrote: ”Some idea of late summer
density was obtained for a lOO-acre trapping area on the isolated north-
east corner of Beaver Island. A 9-day trapping period during the first
half of August yielded 14 juveniles and three adult females or about one
bird per 6 acres. Flushing counts in the first week of October averaged

5 grouse per hour."

101

102

Seasonally, ruffed grouse were represented with the greatest
percent frequency (10.4) and percent volume (2.8) in winter coyote scats.
Spring and summer coyote scats contained grouse with less frequency. None
was identified in autumn coyote feces. Coyote scats collected from the
spring and summer periods of 1960 and 1961 contained grouse remains with
similar frequencies; despite an apparently larger grouse population in
1961.

Although Beaver Island has supported an abundance of ruffed
grouse in recent years coyotes neither appear especially adept at cap-
turing such prey, nor do they devote much effort in their pursuit. Ruffed
grouse seem to add considerably to the winter coyote diet, but from avail-
able evidence the majority of this food is obtained as carrion (Table 18).
Similar findings are reported by Murie, O. J. (1935 and 1945), Murie, A.
(1940), Stebler (1951), and Sperry (1941). While coyotes may find
occasional opportunity to capture ruffed grouse, the amount of predation
is certainly insignificant, and cannot materially influence the island

grouse population.
Sharp-tailed Grouse

While sharp-tailed grouse are currently low in numbers on
Beaver Island, any amount of predation upon them might be an important
factor in their elimination. However, no sharptail remains were identified
in the analyzed coyote feces, and none was located along winter coyote
trails.

The birds appear far too scarce to attract the attention of

hunting coyotes. During the course of study on the island, I observed a

103

total of 30 sharptails, all on northern cleared island areas. The largest
flock, of 12 birds, was sighted on January 27, 1961. A hen with four
young was observed on August 15, 1961. Other group sightings consisted

of 8 and 3 sharptails. Two single birds were also flushed.

Ammann (1957) states, ”Circumstantial evidence points to the two
successive Open seasons (1950 and 1951) as being responsible for the almost
complete disappearance of sharptails on Beaver Island, inasmuch as the birds
had survived under 10 years of protection previous to 1950 at a lower
average population”. Sharptails have been protected from hunters since
1952, but have shown no noticeable increase in their numbers. The continual
decline of the island sharptail pepulation, despite protection, according
to Ammmnn, ”...is not surprising because the few remaining birds in the
spring of 1952 were widely scattered. If the birds had been together in
one colony they might have done better. When populations are down to a
few birds, chance alone may determine the difference between success and
failure". Sharptails have evidently been at this critical point of
balance for sometime; whether they will maintain their present weak hold
on the island, or become eliminated is yet to be determined. Coyotes

seem to play little or not part in this decision.
Duck

Beaver Island provides a fair habitat for a variety of waterfowl.

Black ducks (Anas rubripes), mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged

 

 

teal (Anas discars), ringnecks (Arthya collaris), American golden-eye

 

 

(Glaucionetta clangula), buffle-heads (Glaucionetta albeals), and red-

 

 

breasted mergansers (Mergus serrator) were commonly sighted along the

Lake Michigan shore or the island's inland waters.

-1! 'll
:l'llllll

ll. 1*! .l I
ll

 

104

Ducks were identified in Only two spring and two winter coyote
feces; thus, they seemed unimportant in the coyote diet. Half of a scat
collected in wi ter consisted of duck feathers and bone; the other occur-
rences were in small amounts. Seven ducks were found as carrion along
winter coyote trails, of which four golden-eyes, one black, and a red-
breasted merganser were identified. On February 2nd, a trailed coyOte
visited the fresh carcass Of a golden-eye on the shore of Green Bay,
deposited a scat nearby, and continued on without feeding upon the duck.
Other ducks located in winter were nearly completely consumed. Most of
this carrion probably arose during the fall migration.

Relationships between ducks and coyotes on Beaver Island seem
to be similar to those reported elsewhere by Murie, A. (1940 and 1951),
Murie, O. J. (1935 and 1945), and Bond (1939), namely, that coyotes sieze
ducks when they have the chance, but such opportunity rarely occurs.

Consequently, duck in the coyote diet is primarily secured as carrion.

Song Birds
Coyotes probably find Opportunity to include various species
of song birds in their diet, but evidently such occurrences supplement
the coyote diet in minor amounts. Four analyzed coyote feces contained
remains of small birds; the species were not readily identifiable. Small

bird's eggs occurred as trace amounts in two other scats.

105

Other Birds

In the summer herring gulls (Larus argentatus) dominate the

 

shores of Beaver Island, although their rookeries are located on the
smaller surrounding islands. In the summer dead gulls were commonly
found washed ashore, especially along the west side of the island. Of
the many dead gulls I found none were fed upon by coyotes. Evidence of
herring gull was found in only one coyote scat. About 10 percent of a
spring scat consisted of gull feathers; remains of muskrat constituted
the remainder of the fecal deposit. Coyotes trailed in winter visited
remains of three gulls, but did little more than paw at the carrion.

The feet and feathers of a crow (Corvus brachyghynchos)

 

represented a portion of one August coyote scat. I discarded a number
of crows accidentally killed in traps, later check revealed that coyotes
ate much of the flesh from two. Apparently, coyotes are not averse to
consumption Of such carrion.

Six spring, seven summer, one fall, and three winter coyote
feces contained small amounts of unidentifiable bird remains. In

addition, six scats contained eggshell from undetermined bird species.

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IN THE COYOTE DIET

Invertebrates

Grasshoppers. Numerous investigators have reported grasshOppers

 

(Acrididae) as common food of coyotes, Often utilized in surprisingly
large quantities. Ferrel gg 31, (1953) discovered 640 of the insects in
the stomach of a male coyote pup. Grasshoppers occurred in 35.2 percent
of the coyote feces collected on Beaver Island during July and August.

A still higher frequency of 53.3 percent was recorded in September coyote
scats. As many as 49 grasshopper pronotums were identified in a single
August scat. Some feces contained the insects in greater mass, but no

attempt was made to count the number of individual grasshoppers present.

Beetles. Beetles (Coleoptera) were found in coyote scats with

 

a frequency nearly equal to that of grasshoppers (Table 9). June beetles
(Phyllophaga Sp.) appeared to be the most frequently consumed ColeOpteran,
although ground beetles (Carabidae), carrion beetles (Silphidae), lady-

beetles (Coccinellidae), and darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) were also

 

 

identified in the examined feces. Of the 111 summer scats examined 30.6
percent contained beetles. Coyotes ate beetles nearly as frequently in
spring, since 29.7 percent of the Spring coyote scats contained beetle
chitin. Autumn coyote feces contained their remains with 12.5 percent
frequency, and one winter scat was found to contain beetles. While beetles
generally comprised but a minor portion of the seats in which they were
identified, their exo-skeletons occasionally constituted 90 to 100 per-

cent of individual scat volumes, suggesting that coyotes at times spent

106

107

considerable effort in search of such insect prey. The pups seemed to
consume more beetles than did the adult coyotes.

Other insects. Bees and wasps (Hymenoptera), cicadas (Cicadidae),

 

 

dragonflies (Odonata), and various bugs (Hemiptera) were also recognized
in coyote feces, but such occurrences were infrequent, and relatively
unimportant in the coyote diet (Table 9).

Crayfish. Two coyote seats collected in July contained pinchers
and skeletal portions of crayfish (Crustacea). Two of the seats collected
on August 5, 1962, also contained evidence of crayfish.

Other invertebrates. Wolf Spiders (Lycosidae), identified in

 

two coyote seats, were apparently accidentally ingested while coyotes
fed on grasshoppers, as in both cases much of the scat consisted of grass-

hOpper remains. Three ticks (Dermacentor variabilis) and one terrestrial

 

snail (Anguispira alternata) also were identified in the seats.

 

Cold-blooded Vertebrates
Snakes. Reptilians are not represented by a wide variety of
species on Beaver Island, but certain Species of snakes occur in abundance.

Watersnakes (Natrix sipedon) and the common garter snake (Thamngphis

 

 

sirtalis) are especially abundant. Beaver ponds seem to provide optimal
watersnake habitat, and it was nearly impossible to walk along the dams
without sighting watersnakes. Coyotes included snake flesh in their
diet on occasions, but only in small amounts. Six summer, one autumn,
and three winter coyote feces contained evidence of snake. Three frozen
garter snakes were visited by coyotes trailed in the winter (Table 16).
The coyotes had spent considerable time tossing the snake remains about,

and rolled over them but ate very little of the flesh.

 

..l. I!“ I ‘l I.

t ‘3 .ll' .1! I .I I. ‘7 .i ' 1|. ' l .‘I I 0']. tlllndlz

108

Turtle eggs. Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) and

 

 

painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) seemed to be abundant in the island's

 

inland waters. Old sand dunes and patches of exposed sand along Font
Lake, and ponds adjacent the lake, served as special brooding places for
turtle eggs. In the summer turtle tracks crisscrossed these areas, and
invariably parched turtle egg shells could be found near holes excavated
in the sand by foxes and coyotes. Pups from coyote litters raised west
of Font Lake during 1960 and 1961, visited the sandy areas regularly and
dug turtle eggs from nests in the sand. Turtle eggs occurred in 7.8 per-
cent Of the Spring and 2.7 percent of the summer coyote feces examined,
but never in large quantities.

Fishes. Scales and bone of fish were found in five summer and
two winter coyote seats. The remains comprised 52 percent of a seat
collected in February. A coyote trailed on February 26th located and

fed upon a sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) about 20 inches in length,

 

which had washed ashore from Lake Michigan. Alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus),

 

suckers (Catostomidae), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) were

 

 

commonly found scattered along the Lake Michigan shore during the summer
months, readily available as carrion to scavengers.

Frogs. Trailed coyotes dug five leopard frogs (Rana pipiens)

 

and one unidentified frog from the snow. Frog remains were found in only
one summer scat. Moore (1929) observed coyotes catching frogs and tad-
poles in shallow water, but such practices appeared to be uncommon on

Beaver Island.

109

Vegetable Food

As indicated in previous sections, animal life was readily
available on Beaver Island, and most was commonly consumed by coyotes.
However, as plant fruits became available during the summer and autumn
months coyotes seemed to gorge themselves with the various fruits, rather
than hunt tne narder to capture animal prey. Even the winter coyote diet
contained respectable amounts of plant material.

Sarsapgrilla. The seeds of sarsaparilla were found in 41.4

 

percent of the summer feces examined, and represented 22.4 percent of

the total summer coyote scat bulk. Nearly all recorded sarsaparilla
occurrences were in coyote feces collected in August, such fecal materials
commonly contained nothing but sarsaparilla seeds.

Fruiting bristly sarsaparilla (Aralia hispida) plants were

 

observed in abundance on the abandoned, sandy soiled, clearings of the
island. This species probably accounted for most occurrences of Aralia
in the coyote diet. Darlington (1940) also lists wild sarsaparilla

(Aralia nudicaulis), a plant of moist woodlands, as present on the island.

 

Coyotes probably ate its fruits as well.

Seton (1929) reported wild sarsaparilla present in coyote feces
collected along the Athabaska River, Alberta, Canada. Murie (1940) states
that it is relished by coyotes in certain areas. Few other workers
report the fruit of Aralia as coyote food.

Judging from the frequency and volume of sarsaparilla fruits
detected in coyote fecal materials, the fruit is an important and rather

stable commodity in the August diet of Beaver Island coyotes.

1"

l- I! ‘l

110

RaSpbergy,_blackberry,~and dewbergy. Coyotes ate the fruits

 

of red raspberry, blackberry, and dewberry, but I could not distinguish
between their seeds in coyote feces. Thus, all occurrences of these
fruits were designated as 33233 sp. Of the 111 summer coyote feces
examined 30.6 percent contained Rubus seeds, and comprised 9.5 percent
Of the total summer scat bulk. In the Autumn 3222s seeds were found in
40.7 percent of the feces, and formed 27.2 percent of the scat volume.
Numerous coyote feces consisted nearly entirely Of the Egbgg seeds.

Blackberries seemed to be the most abundant Rubus species on

 

the island, but wherever dewberries occurred they were more available to
coyotes because of their low trailing habit. Raspberries were the least
encountered, but coyotes were known to feed upon them occasionally. On
August 10, 1960, I saw tracks of a peglegged coyote winding in and out
of raspberry patches bordering a sand blow. Evidence indicated that the
animal had been feeding upon the berries.

32233 fruits were identified in about 46 percent of the coyote
seats collected in July and August, but were present in only 34 percent
of the feces from the same months in 1961. I could detect no noticeable
decrease in the availability of the fruits in 1961; in fact, the berries
seemed more abundant. The decrease in coyote utilization Of the fruit
was probably associated with concurrent increased availability of muskrat
and snowshoe hares.

52213, Abandoned fruit bearing apple orchards are common sights
on Beaver Island, as are scattered wild growing apple trees. Two clearings
east of Lake Geneserath contain the largest apple orchards. Of 24 coyote
feces collected in September, 13 contained apple fragments. In the winter

32 percent of the feces contained apples. Apples were less frequently

detected in Spring and summer coyote feces.

ill:

3‘1.

'1 11‘.‘

111

Tue surprising aspect of apple eating by coyotes was their
tremendous use of the fruit during the winter. Apples were found more
frequently in the winter coyote feces than were the remains of snowshoe
hares, even though hares were abundant. Trailed coyotes stOpped to dig
for and feed upon apples on 12 different occasions. The most exaggerated
example was noted on January let, when a single coyote dug beneath 15
different apple trees for the fruits. One coyote scat collected in
January contained 54 cubic centimeters of apple fragments.

Strawberry. Seeds of wild strawberry were found in 14.4 per-
cent of the coyote feces collected in July and August. While the fruit's
seeds could be found only as trace amounts in June and late August seats,
they represented the entire bulk of certain July coyote feces. The island
climate and sandy soil seems to provide an ideal situation for growth of
the berries, and northern cleared island sectors produce the fruits in
abundance. A higher occurrence of strawberry seeds was noted in summer
coyote feces collected in 1960 as compared to those from 1961. The dif-
ferential coyote use of strawberries between the two summers seemed to
reflect a difference in availability of the fruit.

Sand cherry. When sand cherries (Prunus pgmila) were available,

 

 

coyotes ate them in large quantities. Nearly all occurrences of the
fruits were from coyote feces collected in August, suggesting a brief
period during which sand cherries were available and utilized as food by
coyotes. Sand cherries were found in 7.2 percent of the summer coyote
feces examined. One coyote drOpping collected on the sand dunes at Green
Bay contained 210 sand cherry seeds. Other seats contained 174, 136, 130,

98, and 63 seeds, illustrating intensive use of the fruits at times.

112

Beechnut. Of the 64 spring coyote seats examined 9.4 percent
contained beechnut hulls. The fruits were found less frequently in seats
from other seasons. Certain fecal passages collected from coyote pups
contained large amounts of beechnuts, most frequently in combination
with muskrat remains.

Grass and sedgg. There may be some question as to whether grass

(Gramineae) and sedge (Cypcraceae) occur in the coyote diet as plant food

 

or plant debris. The items are invariably identified in coyote feces and
stomachs, often in such quantity that they must be intentionally eaten.
Grier (1957) states that, ”Although coyotes may not digest much of this
grass, it may serve a function as tonic, source of vitamins, or vermicide".
Grasses and sedges were identified in 61 percent of the coyote seats
examined. Many occurrences were in trace amounts, and most likely
accidentally ingested while the coyotes fed on other prey. Other feces
contained grass in sufficient quantities to assume that the materials were
intentionally consumed. Sperry (1941) and Fichter 5£_gl, (1955) report
a considerable unexplainable increase in grass consumption by coyotes
during early summer, but the increase was not evident in the island study.
Othergplants. To simplify identification of plant materials in
the diet, only the more frequently represented and seemingly important items
were identified. Thirteen seed occurrences, representing a very small bulk
and presumably unimportant in the diet, were unclassified. Other unimportant,
but readily identifiable plant fruits in the analyzed coyote faces were
maple seeds, basswood seeds, hemlock cones, barberry seeds (Berberis sp.),
and wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens). Twenty-nine percent of a coyote
scat collected in August consisted of wintergreen berries. The other items
occurred in small amounts, except for the presence of three hemlock cones

in a single coyote pup scat.

113

Debris. Reference to Table 9 reveals that coyotes frequently
consumed non-food materials, generally in trace amounts. Much of the
conifer leaves, deciduous leaves, and wood in the examined feces were
probably accidentally ingested while feeding upon carrion. Sperry (1941),
Murie (1935), Grier (1957), and others noted similar instances of non-
food plant materials in the coyote diet, and likewise contributed the
occurrences to accidental ingestion while eating carrion.

Small stones in one seat were probably from the crop of a
ruffed grouse, since much of the scat contained grouse feathers and
bone. One July scat contained snowshoe hare feces, while no hare
remains were identified in the analyzed scat. Three other seats con-

tained small amounts of paper.

SUMMARY

The effects of predation by coyotes on white-tailed deer of
Beaver Island has been a controversial issue since the early 1950's.

This study was undertaken to better understand the relationships between
coyotes and wildlife on the island, and to gain information regarding
coyote foods and nabits.

Beaver Island is located on northern Lake Michigan, and has a
surface area of 50.4 Square miles. The flora of the island is related
closely to that of counties in northern Lower Micnigan. About one-quarter
of the mammal Species represented on the nearby mainland have been found
on the island. In recent years, the island has maintained a permanent
population of several hundred human inhabitants.

Field data was gathered during the summers of 1960 and 1961,
and the winter of 1960-61. Coyotes were trailed for 227.7 miles during
the winter, whereby behavior of the animals was studied. Ten coyotes and
20 red foxes were trapped, tagged, and released during the summer. A total
of 274 coyote feces, representing all seasons, was collected and analyzed.
In addition, game biologists recorded data along 86.6 miles of coyote
trails, and tagged and released four coyotes on the island, from 1956 to
1959.

Evidence of coyotes was first detected on the island in 1943.
The first island coyote was killed in November, 1944. Coyotes apparently
established themselves on the island by traveling across the ice of Lake
Michigan, coming either from Upper or Lower Michigan. Coyotes appeared
most numerously on the island during the early 1950's. The largest annual
coyote kill was 36 animals in 1953. In recent years, it has been estimated
that the annual autumn coyote population on Beaver Island consisted of 25

. 1 O
to 30 anima s 114

115

Trailed coyotes ordinarily started their nightly hunting
activities at dusk and curtailed their travel by dawn. The primary
hunting techniques they employed in winter were ”roving”, "stalk and
pounce”, and ”chasing”. The hunting manner varied with the Species Of
prey. Coyote movements generally involved straight-lined travel from
one feeding station to another. When snow was deep and soft they
frequently traveled deer trails and established their own runways.

Tracks of lone coyotes were more frequently sighted in the
winter than those Of pairs. No groups of three or more coyotes were
noted to hunt cooperatively.

Tracks and feces of coyotes were most frequently observed on
the northern part of the island, which provides a more interSpersed
habitat. Trailed coyotes hunted for prey most frequently in mixed aspen,
white birch, and conifer cover. They appeared to shun upland hardwood
cover. Cleared land, swamp conifer, upland pine, inland lakes, and most
other types were utilized as they were available. Lone coyotes fre-
quently traveled the Lake Michigan shore lines, but paired coyotes rarely
traveled the beaches. Forty-two coyote beds were located while trailing
coyotes. The most common bedding site was on slightly elevated sites in
dense conifer cover. Beds were frequently found in close proximity to
deer carcasses.

The average tracking distance from where tracking first began
to where the coyote bedded down was 3.7 miles (minimum 1.3 miles, maxi-
mum 8.2 miles). The average straight-line measurement from the point
where trailing first began to the beds was 2.1 miles (minimum .8 miles,

maximum 3.5 miles).

116

Ranges of coyotes on Beaver Island overlapped; certain preferred
areas were shared by a number of coyotes. Tracks of two coyotes which
were missing toes were identified on 24 occasions. Minimal areas of
activity for these animals were estimated to be 20 to 25 square miles.

Tagged coyotes were recovered .25, l, 2, 6.5, and 35 miles from
the original tagging sites. The latter was killed in Lower Michigan.

Feeding habits of coyotes changed with food availability, namely,
from a highly carnivorous winter and spring diet to consistent utilization
of plant fruits and insects as they became available in the summer and
autumn.

[Residues of white-tailed deer were the most frequently detected
animal item in the 274 coyote feces. In winter, 90 percent of the feces
contained deer remains. Observations along coyote trails indicated that
deer killed or crippled by hunters served as the primary winter food.

Only one of 19 dead deer found along 314 miles of winter coyote trails
from 1956 to 1962 was definitely killed by coyotes. Newborn fawn remains
were identified in 31.6 percent of the spring coyote feces. It appeared
that coyotes preyed upon young deer during the vulnerable period before
fawns were agile enough to follow the does. However, the fawn occurrences
could not be positively distinguished as carrion or fresh kills.

Snowshoe hares were the most frequently detected mammal item
in scats from the spring, summer, and autumn. Remains of 15 snowshoe
hares were found along the winter coyote trails, two had been killed by
coyotes earlier.

Muskrat occurred in 42 percent of the seats collected during the
dry 1961 summer, but were uncommon in seats from the 1960 summer when pre-

cipitation was great.

11?

Cattle carrion was available, and often consumed by coyotes
during summer months. Some predation of calves was reported.

Gray squirrels and eastern chipmunks were present on Beaver
Island in tremendous numbers during 1961. However, coyotes did not
appear adept at capturing such diurnal and alert prey. Their occurrence
in the coyote diet was of minor importance.

Woodland deer mice were also abundant on the island, but
infrequent in the coyote diet. Winter scats contained mice with the
greatest seasonal frequency.

Coyotes apparently captured young beaver on occasion, and
additional beaver carrion was available from the carcasses discarded by
trappers.

Raccoon and woodchuck were identified in several coyote feces.
Trailed coyotes killed masked shrews, but the species was not identified
in the examined feces.

Twenty red foxes were trapped, tagged, and released on Beaver
and adjacent islands. Tagged foxes were retrapped on seven occasions.
Two have been reportedly killed to date. During the study coyotes con-
centrated on northern cleared parts of the island and foxes in densely
vegetated southern portions. Antagonism and competition between foxes
and coyotes seemed to be responsible for the segregation of their
activities.

Ruffed grouse were represented in about 10 percent of the winter
coyote scats; tracking evidence indicated that coyotes obtained most as
carrion. Ducks, song birds, herring gulls, crows, and eggshells of

various birds were less freque.tly detected in the scats.

118

Grasshoppers and beetles were the most frequent invertebrates
in the coyote diet.

Snakes, turtle eggs, fish, and frogs were readily available
on the island, and occasionally represented in the coyote feces.

The fruits of sarsaparilla were the most frequently detected
item in the coyote feces collected during August. Blackberries, rasp-
berries, dewberries, strawberries, sand cherries, and beechnuts were
readily accepted by coyotes as food when available. Apples occurred
more frequently in the winter coyote feces than snowshoe hare remains.
Trailed coyotes were observed to spend considerable time digging for

frozen apples even though mammal prey was abundant.

LITERATURE CITED
Ammann, G. A. 1957. The prairie grouse of Michigan. Mich. Dept.
Cons., Lansing. 200 pp.

, and w. L. Palmer. 1958. Ruffed grouse introductions on
Michigan islands. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 22:322-325.

Arnold, David. 1956. Red foxes of Michigan. Mich. Dept. Cons.,
Lansing. 48 pp.

Bond, Richard M. 1939. Coyote food habits on the Lava Beds National
Monument. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 3:180-198.

Burt, William H. 1957. Mammals of the Great Lakes region. Univ.
Mich. Press, Ann Arbor. 246 pp.

Cronyn, Margaret and John Kenny. 1958. The saga of Beaver Island.
Braun and Brumfield, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. 143 pp.

Dahlberg, Burton and R. C. Guettinger. 1956. The white-tailed deer in
Wisconsin. Tech. Bull. 14. Wis. Cons. Dept., Madison. 282 pp.

Darlington, Henry T. 1940. Some vegetational aspects of Beaver Island,
Lake Michigan. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Ltrs., 23:31-37.

Dearborn, Ned. 1932. Foods of some predatory fur-bearing animals in
Michigan. School Forestry and Cons. Bull. 1, Univ. Mich.

52 pp.

Dice, Lee R. 1927. A manual of the recent wild mammals of Michigan.
Univ. Mich. ius. Zool. Hdbk. Ser. No. 2.

Dixon, Joseph. 1934. A study of the life history and food habits of
mule deer in California. Calif. Fish and Game, 20:181-282.

Duvendeck, Jerry P. 1958. Island deer census. Completion Rept.,
Job No. D-l, P-R Proj. w-95-R-2, Game Div., Mich. Dept. Cons.

Erickson, Albert. 1955. An ecological study of the bobcat in Michigan.
Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Mich. State Univ., East Lansing. 132 pp.

1957. Techniques for live-trapping and handling black bears.
Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf., 22:520-543.

Ferrel, Carol M., H. Leach, and D. Tilloston. 1953. Food habits of the
coyote in California. Calif. Fish and Game, 39:301-341.

Fichter, 3., G. Schildman, and J. H. Sather. 1955. Some feeding patterns
of coyotes in Nebraska. Ecol. Monog., 25:196-207.

119

120

Fitch, H. S. 1948. A study of coyote relationships on cattle range.
J. Wildl. Mgmt., 12:73-78.

, and R. L. Packard. 1955. The coyote on a natural area in
northeastern Kansas. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci., 58:211-221.

Garlough, F. E. 1940. Study of the migratory habits of coyotes. Unpubl.
U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Rept., 5 pp.

1945. Capturing foxes. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Cir. No. 8.
11 pp.

Gier, H. T. 1957. Coyoces in Kansas. Kans. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech.
Bull. 393. 95 pp.

Goldman, E. A. 1930. The coyote-archpredator. J. Mamm., 11:325-335.

Hall, Raymond E. 1927. The deer of California. Calif. Fish and Game.
13:233-259.

Hatt, R. T., J. V. Tyne, L. C. Stuart, C. H. POpe, and A. B. Grobman.
1948. Island life:a study of the land vertebrates of the islands
of eastern Lake Michigan. Bull. 27, Cranbrook Press, Bloomfield
Hills, Mich. 179 pp.

Hawbaker, Stanley S. 1944. Trapping North American furbearers. Craft
Press, Inc., Fayetteville, Pennsylvania. pp. 29-58.

Horn, E. E. 1941. Some coyote-wildlife relationships. Trans. N. Amer.
Wildl. Conf., 4:203-208.

Kelker, George H. 1943. A winter census in northeastern Wisconsin.
J. Wildl. Mgmt., 7:133-136.

Korschgen, Leroy J. 1957. Food habits of the coyote in Missouri.
J. Wildl. Mgmt., 21:424-435.

Latham, Roger M. 1951. The ecology and economics of predator management.
Pennsylvania Game Comm., Harrisburg. 96 pp.

Moore, Robert D. 1929. Canis latrans lestes Merriam feeding on tadpoles
and frogs. J. Mamm., 10:255.

 

Moran, Richard J. 1960. Fall grouse pOpulation studies. Completion
Rept., Job No. B-2. P-R Proj. W-95-R-6, Game Div., Mich. Dept. Cons.

Mosby, Henry S. 1960. Manual of game investigational techniques. Wildl.
Soc., Blacksburg, Virginia. pp. 13:1-13z9.

Iurie, Adolph. 1936. Following fox trails. Misc. Publ. Mus. 2001.,
Univ. Mich., N0. 32. 45 pp.

121

1940. Ecology of the coyote in the Yellowstone.
U. S. Dept. Int., Nat. Park Serv., Fauna Ser. No. 4. 206 pp.

1951. Coyote food habits on a southwestern cattle range.
J. Mamm., 32:291-295. '

Murie, Olaus J. 1935. Food habits of the coyote in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
U. S. Dept. Agr. Circ. 362. 24 pp.

1945. Notes on coyote food habits in Montana and British
Columbia. J. Mamm., 20:33-40.

Nagel, W. 0., F. Sampson, and A. Brohn. 1955. Predator control-why and
how. Missouri Cons. Comm., Jefferson City. 32 pp.

Quick, Horace F. 1953. Wolverine, fisher, marten, studies in a
wilderness region. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf., 18:512-532.

Robinson, Weldon B. 1951. Movements of coyotes from and to Ye1lowstone
National Park. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept.,
Wildl. N0. 11. 17 pp.

, and Eugene F. Grand. 1958. Comparative movements of bobcats
and coyotes as disclosed by tagging. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 22:117-122.

Romanov, A. 1956. Automatic tagging of wild animals and prospects for
its use. Zoological J., 35:190-205. USSR Acad. Sci., Moscow.

Schofield, Raymond. 1959. Unpubl. Game Div. Rept. No. 2229, Mich.
Dept. Cons., Lansing. 8 pp.

1960. A thousand miles of fox trails in Michigan's ruffed
grouse range. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 24:432-434.

Scott, Thos. D. 1947. Comparative analysis of red fox feeding trends
on two central Iowa areas. Iowa State C011. Res. Bull. 353. 61 pp.

Seton, Ernest T. 1929. Lives of game animals. Vol. I. Doubleday,
Doran and Co., Inc., New York.

Skinner, Milton. 1927. The predatory and furbearing animals of the-
Yellowstone National Park. Roosevelt Wildlife Forest Exp. Sta.
Bull. 4:163-281.

Sooter, Clarence A. 1946. Habits of coyotes in destroying nests and
eggs of waterfowl. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 7:133-136.

Sorensen, Harry. 1961. Notes on the geology of the Beaver Islands.
Unpubl. Geology Div. Rept. Mich. Dept. Cons., Lansing. 42 pp.

Sperry, Charles C. 1941. Food habits of the coyote. U. S. Fish and
Wildl. Res. Bull. 4. 70 pp.

122

Stains, Howard J. 1956. The raccoon in Kansas, natural history,
management, and economic important. Univ. Kans. Nat. Hist. and
State Biol. Surv., Misc. Publ. No. 10. 76 pp.

Stebler, Adolph M. 1939. The tracking technique in the study of the
larger predatory mammals. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf., 4:203-208.

1951. The ecology of Michigan coyotes and wolves. Unpubl.
Ph D. Thesis, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor.' 198 pp.

Tiemier, Otto W. 1955. Winter foods of Kansas coyotes. Trans. Kans.
Acad. Sci., 58:196-207.

Wood, Norman A. 1922. The mammals of Washtenaw County, Michigan. Univ.
Mich., Occas. Pap. Mus. 2001. No. 23.

, and L. R. Dice. 1923. Records of the distribution of Michigan
mammals. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts, and Ltrs. 3:425-469.

Yeager, Dorr G. 1931. Our wilderness neighbors. A. C. McClurg and Co.,
Chicago. 160 pp.

Young, S. P. and H. T. Jackson. 1951. The clever coyote. Wildl. Mgmt.
Inst., Washington, D.C. 411 pp.

 

‘1.
_..~. fHJ‘

C ’ 7;.)

u

.fil—

. '17."
4..

 

 

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

lull"! HI

31293101280307