A committee of County council has taken its first steps toward a bounty on nuisance coyotes in Prince Edward County—but will it work? Will pinning a price of $100 on the head of coyotes and / or wolves limit the coyote population or reduce livestock losses?

The answer appears to be no. Neither the prevailing science, nor the experience of jurisdictions that offer bounties or compensation for dead coyotes, past or present, offers any reason to believe a County bounty will reduce livestock losses. Instead, the evidence suggests it could make matters worse.

Council officials have been directed to develop a compensation program similar to that offered by Grey County in western Ontario. Grey is one of only three municipalities in the province (along with neighbouring Huron and Bruce Counties) that offers payment for dead coyotes. Prince Edward County would be the fourth and the only jurisdiction in central and eastern Ontario with a dead coyote compensation program. Grey County has paid hunters $50 per coyote head since 1993.

But rather than shrinking over time, both livestock loss claims and compensation for dead coyotes have increased steadily.

Grey and surrounding counties Bruce and Huron have watched as their bounty claims rise steadily (see adjoining graph) each year—meanwhile livestock losses continue to grow.

Last fall, municipal officials in Grey County urged representatives not to increase the amount of the bounty from $50 to $100. “Given the information previously provided to the County, this [increase in compensation for dead coyotes] will be of limited effect, but would impact the budget,” read a municipal staff report.

Supporters of the bounty suggest livestock losses would be worse without the payment program.

But evidence gathered by Brent Patterson, a research specialist with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), paints a different picture.

In Utah, researchers Rebecca Bartel and Mark Brunson found “there is no documented evidence indicating that bounty programs temporarily or permanently reduce coyote abundance or subsequently reduce livestock depredation.”

In Newfoundland in 2006 a scientific newsletter on coyotes in that island province reported on a meeting of fur managers and biologists from across Canada and the eastern U.S..

“The synopsis was that bounties did not work. Despite aerial slaughters, poisons and bounties the resilient coyote proved to be a survivor. In fact their versatility and reproductive capacity actually allowed them to expand their range despite intense control initiatives.”

Patterson suggested in a presentation to Grey County officials that the municipality might be successful in eradicating the coyote population if it killed more than 50 per cent of the population per year, and it were an island.

Since neither of these conditions is likely to be met, he suggests that residents and lawmakers in Grey County learn to live with the coyotes.

Rather than blanket removal programs, Patterson suggests targeted hunting aimed at breeding males—those mostly likely responsible for livestock kills. He says timing is key since removing breeding coyotes during the non-lambing season does little to reduce losses the following lambing season.

Patterson was scheduled to speak to Prince Edward council on Tuesday evening.

Despite the evidence and experience in other counties, the plea for the municipality to do “something” may yet prove irresistible.