Table of Contents for this page:
Please WAIT for the page to fully load before using these links.

Introduction | Objectives & Methodology | Results | Recommendations | Conclusions | Literature Cited

INTRODUCTION
The National Park Service, in 1993, initiated an intensive program to inventory components of the natural ecosystem and monitor populations over time. These efforts will provide baseline data for comparison to future conditions. Significant changes which are identified will be assessed to determine if management actions are needed to correct problems. This effort can best be described as ecosystem monitoring.

In late 1992, Resources Management staff of Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CVNP) identified several ecosystem components which they believed were important enough to merit further study. Each of these could readily be inventoried and monitored and would provide meaningful indications of overall ecosystem health.

Coyotes (Canis latrans) were selected as one of these elements for several reasons. Primarily, because its the most dominant carnivore or predator in our ecosystem and therefore is a prime contributor to diversity. It is a species that has recently returned to the valley after a long absence. Secondly, the park provides good habitat for the coyote with its many open fields and agricultural landscape. Finally, park residents and visitors were frequently reporting coyote sightings.

Return to the top of the page

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
The objectives of this inventory and monitoring effort are to collect baseline population data and to determine geographic distribution of coyotes.

An auditory count method was conducted to collect data on coyote population. This howling survey was used to estimate approximate numbers of coyote in an area by using repeatable listening stations and identifying number, distance and direction of responding coyotes. The detailed methodology is described in the 1993 monitoring plan.

Return to the top of the page

RESULTS
Twelve listening stations were visited once a week for six weeks from September to mid-October. In 1993, thirteen listening stations were visited. These stations were modified slightly due to excessive traffic noises and reduced to 12 stations. These 12 listening stations were used during the 1994 through 1996 surveys.

Responses were recorded at six of the twelve monitoring sites. These sites were geographically located throughout the park as noted on the attached map. Responses were recorded in three listening stations in the southern portion of the park, south of State Route 303 and in three listening areas in the northern portion of the park as noted below:

To estimate the population, the highest count for each stop is recorded. These counts are added together for a total high of 21. Biologists in northeast Ohio have determined that 53% of the coyotes present will call. This percentage has been derived from previous studies in Ohio and in north-central Montana. If 53% of the coyotes present will call, then

.53x = 21

x = 39.6 population estimate for 1996.

These results suggest a significant decrease (40%) in the coyote population since 1995 (Figure 1).  However, it should be noted that several of the listening stations (Bolanz, Ira, VK Lake and perhaps Wheatley) were interrupted by excessive disturbances from a local sweet corn farmer who had a permit to kill nuisance deer during the late evening/early morning hours. In addition to the gunshots in the area, the farmer used a recording of a howling dog pack as a deer deterrent in several corn fields. This dog pack recording was played continuously during the first four nights of the survey. This tape was audible to our ears from at least two listening stations. Coyotes may have been able to hear this dog pack tape from as many as four stations. This tape may have conditioned any coyotes whose home ranges fell within the proximity to where the tapes were being played into not responding. This conditioning may have resulted in a negative response to our howling survey. Scientific literature recommends that howling surveys be conducted less than twice per week to reduce the possibility of habituation (Wenger and Cringan 1978).

Because of this intrusion into the survey, the estimated population of 40 animals may be suspect. Since last year's estimate was 66 animals, the population estimate for 1996 was expected to remain close to or exceed 66 animals.

In addition to the number of howls counted each night, the distance and direction of each howl were noted. This data was then compared to a park vegetation map to estimate habitat preferences. A total of 28 howls were heard during the survey. Twenty howls were heard in scrub, old field areas or agricultural fields, and eight in forested areas. It appears that the coyote are using habitats that encompass open fields adjacent to forested areas. Hunting is most likely occurring in the old fields and open areas while den and cover areas are in the more mature forested habitats.

Geographically, the coyotes are distributed throughout the park. In 1993, the majority of howls were recorded at the Ira Trailhead near the Special Events Site. In 1994, greater responses were recorded on Bolanz Road and Horseshoe Pond. In 1995, the highest number of howls were recorded south of Bath Road, towards the landfill area and the Akron Wastewater Treatment Plant. In 1996, greater responses were recorded at Ira Trailhead and the park's Central Maintenance Area on Riverview Road in Brecksville. Figure 2 compares the highest number of howls recorded at each listening station from 1993 to 1996.

Return to the top of the page

RECOMMENDATIONS
The howling survey was not successful on four of the six nights of the survey in the southern end of the park due to the nuisance deer hunting and dog tapes. After a period of almost two weeks of no deer hunting/deterring activity (because the corn was harvested), the last evening of the survey was very successful. Coordination with the local farmer for next year may be needed if the survey is to continue. Also, traffic noises, train whistles, airplanes, domestic dogs, and general night noises affected the observers ability to clearly distinguish the number of coyotes responding. Since it is a relatively easy survey to complete, with minimal staff time expended, we recommend that it be continued. Also, coyote sightings by residents and visitors are increasing. The public is aware that coyote are in the area and are concerned that this animal might become a nuisance. There have been several instances of coyote preying on domestic pets, and domestic fowl.

If staff resources permit, a secondary survey, such as scent stations, could be added to compliment the howling survey and compare baseline data. The scent station survey could also be used to collect data in noisy, high traffic areas.

Since this survey is relatively easy to replicate, naturalists in this park and surrounding metroparks have demonstrated it for the public. It should be noted that coyotes become habituated to the taped calls and will not respond if too many howling tapes are being played to invoke responses. It is recommended that naturalist's programs be scheduled after completion of the entire monitoring survey so final results are not affected.

Return to the top of the page

CONCLUSIONS
We now have baseline data of coyote population and geographic distribution within the park for the past four years. Baseline data should continue to be collected to establish a population estimate and trend data of this species within the park. Also, in learning about the coyote population, we may be able to see if there are any effects on the deer or fox population within the park due to trends in coyote populations.

Literature Cited
Wenger, C.R. and A.T. Cringan. 1978. Siren-elicited coyote vocalizations: and evaluation of a census technique. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6:73-76.

Return to the top of the page