You are here
قراءة كتاب Coyotes in Their Economic Relations
تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"
Coyotes in Their Economic Relations
dogs was placed at $152,034 in Ohio and $200,000 in Missouri. (Sheep Industry in the United States. U. S. Dept of Agric, 1892.)
Dr. E. A. C. Foster, writing from Russell, Kans., in 1887, said:
Of mammals, the prairie wolf is perhaps the most troublesome. It is constantly preying upon sheep and lambs; so much so that sheep can not be left alone without some of them falling a prey to this animal. Should the herder be absent or out of view, the wolf makes a dash into the flock and usually secures a lamb.
William Lloyd, writing from Paint Rock, Concho County, Tex., said:
In January. 1886, coyotes killed over 30 sheep near Fort Stockton, and in March about 20 at Toyah, Tex.
Charles W. Richmond, in 1888, wrote to the Survey from Gallatin County. Mont., relating the following incident:
While we were camped near Bozeman a flock of some 4,000 sheep were driven by, and night overtook them on some foothills south of Bozeman. During the night a flock of coyotes entered the ranks and the sheep stampeded. Many ran over some bluffs, and next morning sheep, dead and dying, were several feet deep at the foot of the bluffs. Nearly 500 were counted in the pile, and for several days afterwards sheep, with lacerated ears and torn flanks, wandered into barnyards in the vicinity. The total number lost must have been heavy.
In parts of the Southwest sheep growers have estimated their losses from wild animals as equal to 20 percent of the flock. The average loss reported from several States is 5 percent. In nearly all the States west of the Mississippi the industry has declined in the past two years, and one of the principal causes given is losses from coyotes. At present the industry thrives only in sections where the local conditions permit the herding of sheep in large flocks—a system highly injurious to the pasturage.
It is evident that the wealth of any State could be materially increased if it were possible everywhere to keep small flocks of sheep, Flocks increase rapidly under favorable conditions and good management, and the cost of keeping them is small when herders can be dispensed with. The double product, wool and million, usually places the profit of handling them above that of cuttle or horses. The gains also come oftener, since sheep mature in a year, while cattle and horse require three.
Vernon Bailey, chief field naturalist of the Biological Survey, writing from Seguin, Tex., under date of November 8, 1904, says:
No sheep are kept in tins part of Texas, and in talking with several intelligent farmers I find that the reason invariably given is the abundance of coyotes. The region is occupied by small farms, mainly 80 to 500 acres, on which cotton, corn, sorghum, and vegetables are the principal crops. There are few if any large stock ranches, but each farm has its pastures for horses and cattle. These pastures are the wild land covered with scattered mosquito, post oak, and patches of chaparral and cactus. The native grasses are abundant and of excellent quality, and in this mild climate furnish good feed throughout the year. Many of the pastures are not half eaten down, and the dead and dry vegetation becomes a nuisance. After harvest cattle and horses are usually turned into cotton and grain fields, where they do good work in cleaning up grass and weeds in the field and along the borders. Still there is abundance of feed constantly going to waste, and a small flock of sheep could be kept with great profit and no expense on almost every farm.
Fifty to two hundred sheep on a farm would at once make this part of Texas the most important woolgrowing section of the State. Other advantages to be gained would be keeping down the cactus and chaparral, which are inclined to spread and occupy much of the ground, keeping the edges of pastures and fields cleaned up so that they would not harbor a host of predaceous insects and rodents in close proximity to growing crops, and furnishing to the farmers and small towns a supply of fresh meat other than chicken. In this warm climate beef is rarely available, except in the larger towns. The advantages of introducing sheep into this part of the country are acknowledged by the farmers, and there seems to be no reason why it has not been done, except that coyotes are common, large, and fond of mutton.
Similar conditions prevail in many parts of the West and over large areas. While a dozen years ago the low price of wool was an important factor in causing farmers to abandon sheep raising, in recent years the prices have been excellent. Fine washed wool was quoted in the New York market February 6, 1905, at 32.35 cents per pound and in St. Louis on the same date at 40.41 cents per pound. The price of tub-washed wool at St. Louis was at no time during 1904 less than 30 cents per pound. Unwashed wool ranged from 15 to 31 cents during most of the year. Yet the number of sheep in the United States is now decreasing. Montana, with an area of 146,000 square miles, leads the States in the number of sheep kept, which is 5,638,957.[E] England, with an area of 50,867 square miles, has about five times as many as Montana. In Montana sheep are herded in immense flocks; in England every landowner and farmer keeps a small flock.