NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Fauna of the National Parks of the United States No. 4 Ecology of the Coyote in the Yellowstone

REMAINS of adult antelope (Antilocapra americana americana) were found in 21 coyote droppings, and remains of fawns in 32. A total of 1,657 droppings were gathered on the antelope range. Considerable concern has been expressed over the welfare of the antelope, it being strongly felt by many that the coyote was a threat to its existence in Yellowstone. For this reason, factors affecting the antelope were carefully studied. Not only was the coyote pressure on antelope and the survival of fawns noted, but also such other factors as condition of the antelope winter range and competition from other game animals.

Figure 31— The dull, greyish brown of an antelope fawn blends well with the sagebrush and the ground,
making it more difficult to find than the conspicuously spotted young of elk or deer.
Horseshoe, June 11, 1938.

WINTER RANGE

The winter range of the antelope in the park consists of the sagebrush areas from Reese Creek to and including the lower slopes of Mount Everts and to Rattlesnake Butte on whose steep slopes some antelope are usually found all winter. In 1930 Ranger J. L. Greer in his November report stated that 93 antelope were seen on the bench lands outside the park north of the Yellowstone River in the vicinity of Bear Creek. The following month Ranger Allyn Hanks reported seeing 64 antelope in this area. It was unusual for this species to be found here even though the range is better than within the park. During the winter of 1937—38 a few antelope were occasionally found outside the park below Reese Creek. In the cold months of 1938—39 the majority of the antelope herd moved outside the park below Reese Creek, where there is good winter range. It is possible that the rather close confinement of the antelope to the poor range in the park during the past few years may in part have been due to poaching outside, although habit may have been a more important factor.

Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) forms the staple winter diet of the antelope. It is eaten at all seasons but in winter is particularly sought. In March, when the snowdrifts in the hollows had melted sufficiently to expose the tops of the sagebrush that had been protected by snow during the winter, the antelope were frequently seen wading into the drifts to feed on it, since elsewhere it was closely browsed. Atriplex oblanceolata is also an important winter food, especially if the snow is so light that it does not cover this low-lying plant. Although even more palatable than sagebrush, Atriplex oblanceolata is far less important as a winter food because it is much less abundant. Yellowbrush (Chrysothamnus), and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), are frequently eaten but rate lower in palatability than sagebrush and Atriplex oblanceolata, and are not so widely distributed over the winter range. Russian thistle is heavily consumed wherever found.

Other species are eaten in winter, such as fringed sagebrush (Artemisia frigida) which would be of more importance if it were not so scarce. Discarded Douglas firs on the Mammoth dump, which had been used for Christmas trees, were eaten, but consumption of living fir was not noted elsewhere. No fir is available except in fall or early spring on the edges of the range. In late fall and early spring some green grasses are available and are highly relished.

In winter, no evidence of feeding on dry grasses was noted; and if any grasses are eaten the amount is slight. It is important to remember this in order to avoid misleading calculations dealing with antelope food on winter range in Yellowstone. For instance, several years ago sagebrush on sample plots on the antelope range was grubbed out to learn whether the grass could be increased.

On the antelope winter range, considerably more than 75 percent of the sagebrush is dead as a result of overbrowsing. In some places there is not much evidence of its former presence but elsewhere the dead stalks stand or lie broken loose. Figure 36 shows the position of a fence along the old park boundary which from about 1902 to about 1932 prevented the antelope to some extent from moving out of the park. Although the fence has been removed the sagebrush is now largely dead on both sides of the old fence line but that to the north (right) of the line is more in evidence because it was overbrowsed later, therefore is not so broken down and some is still alive. Nearly all sagebrush on more recently acquired park lands as far as the new boundary at Reese Creek is dead.

In past years the antelope have generally been confined to the winter range within the park, and during the winter of 1937—38 only a few of them were ever seen below Reese Creek outside Yellowstone. In the winter of 1938—39 the antelope moved outside enmasse to better range north of Reese Creek. In November more than 200 were seen north of this creek, and on March 1, 1939, a total of 495 were counted there. No doubt some actually present were missed in the count. Shortage of food within the park was probably the main reason for the general exodus.

The poor range conditions in the park were aggravated by an unusually large amount of snow lying on the ground all winter.

At the present time, antelope are the heaviest utilizers of sagebrush on their range as a whole, but at the borders of the range deer consume large quantities. The deer range overlaps a portion of the antelope range, and since deer in winter are heavy feeders on sagebrush there is direct competition for food. A few deer may be found wandering out in the middle of the antelope range but most of them are found on the fringes, in the Game Ranch area and on the lower slopes of Mount Everts along the Gardiner River. Bighorn and antelope compete for sagebrush and other plants and now most of the sagebrush has vanished from the more exposed slopes where bighorn are found. Elk feed on sagebrush in small quantities, not from necessity but because they relish it, as shown to a certain extent by the fact that they eat it early in the fall before any snow has fallen, when other palatable foods are available. The quantity of sagebrush consumed by large bands of elk may be considerable. For some time, apparently, a number of elk have wintered on the antelope range and nearby and have probably contributed a little to the overbrowsed condition of the sagebrush. At the present time elk are attracted to the antelope range by fields of brome and wheat grasses, planted on the former cultivated lands at the Game Ranch in order to keep the soil from blowing away. During the winter of 1937—38 between 800 and 1,000 elk visited the fields each night, returning to the forested foothills for the day. En route to and from the fields, evenings and mornings, the elk browsed on sagebrush. It had been eaten so closely that there was little available, but enough elk were congregated to have done considerable damage if a good stand had been present. It is hoped that less luxuriant native vegetation may soon take over the hay fields which are now such an attraction to elk, whose presence there in large numbers is injurious to the antelope range.

Figure 32— An antelope doe with two fawns of nursing age. The short muzzles, mane on neck,
and carriage of the head are useful characters for identifying fawns.
Tower Falls, September 18, 1938.

SPRING ACTIVITIES

In April, and sometimes earlier, the antelope move up-country from the Game Ranch wintering area, while deep snowdrifts still lie in the hollows and on the north facing slopes. In summer they are distributed from the Game Ranch all the way to Tower Falls and to the high grassy ridges bordering Cache Creek on the east. They are commonly found on top of Specimen Ridge. In the summer of 1938 at least one hundred antelope stayed on the winter range in the Game Ranch area. These animals were thus remaining the year around on the same range. In August 1935, I saw three antelope in Hayden Valley. This occurrence was unusual, although in the early days the species regularly summered there. In early November the antelope move back to the winter range.

The fawns are born in late May and early June. On May 28, 1938, 10 of 12 does were still obviously heavy with calf; a day later a fawn was found; on the thirty-first most of the does seen, although scattered out singly, still seemed heavy with fawn; on June 4, three does were with fawns; on June 7, two fawns were found which had been born during the day; on June 10 a doe, still heavy, was observed. It was my impression that by June 10 most of the fawns had been born, but that very few arrive before May 28. Twinning is not at all unusual. Between June 4 and June 11 six does were seen with twins and seven with a single fawn. Some of the does with a single fawn may have borne twins.

MATERNAL PROTECTION

The does travel together up to fawning time. As each doe feels the time approach she goes off by herself, but not necessarily far from the others, for often lone antelope may be seen only one or two hundred yards apart. A few days after birth of the fawns, the does begin to bunch up and soon the bands are together again. The fawns romp and rest together and when the band is traveling they are usually bunched. In June I have seen as many as seven fawns following one doe. On July 2, 1937, eight fawns were frolicking together two or three hundred yards away from the adults, and some of them lay down by themselves at that distance. When the fawns saw me they galloped away until they were about one-third of a mile from the adults. Here some of them lay down. At this time the young seem to be as fleet as the adults. They spend much time racing over the slopes and continue this frolicsome activity through cold weather. In late winter I have seen them lay back their ears and chase each other at great speed.

A new-born antelope fawn found June 7, 1938, measured between 16 and 17 inches in height at the shoulder; an accurate measurement was not secured because of difficulty in getting it to stand on its feet quietly. It could travel but did so with some unsteadiness. A day or two after birth the fawns travel quite well and soon move about freely with their mothers and the band. In early June fawns were frequently seen following their mothers.

The fawn has a strong instinct for hiding and lies motionless and limp when handled. It lacks spots and has a greyish-brown coat which makes it hard to find. On June 3 a doe, and a fawn which had been nursing, became frightened and galloped away. When the fawn came to a clump of sagebrush and cinquefoil it dropped beside it as though shot and lay still. It seemed to know the hiding possibilities offered by the vegetation. When it was lifted to its feet it galloped away to join its mother and disappear over a ridge. It is my impression that antelope young get up and run away from disturbances at an earlier age than do the elk calves.

Figure 33— Among the antelope several cripples were noted, some of which nevertheless traveled far.
The buck in the illustration had a stiff, bent foreleg. He lived the year round near Gardiner.
May 22, 1938.

The protection the fawns receive from their mothers before they begin to travel to any extent with the bands is of importance in connection with the vulnerability of the fawns to predators. On June 4, 1938, I watched three does, each with two fawns, from 9:30 a. m. until 8 p. m. The does were on two rather gentle slopes of some low buttes east of Trumpeter Lake; one doe was alone on one slope and two does were together on the other. The following observations were made of the lone doe:

During the period of 1-1/2 hours that I watched, the mother was out of sight of the fawns for about 40 minutes. The inactivity of the fawns indicated that they were very young.

Movement of does numbers 2 and 3:

From noon to 8 p. m. the doe searching for her fawn had been out of sight of her remaining one about 45 minutes. The other mother was out of sight of her fawns only about 10 minutes. It therefore appears that the mothers remain close enough to their offspring to watch for intruders most of the time when the fawns are young.

On June 4 near Tower Falls I saw a doe looking at a spot 10 or 15 yards from her and upon investigation found a fawn. The doe ran off a hundred yards. When I picked up the little one it cried and brought the mother, on a dead run, to within 10 yards of me. I put the fawn down and it ran off with its mother on unsteady legs. The mother was in this case quite fearless in approaching me when it felt its young endangered.

During the summer of 1937 fawn remains were found in 32 coyote droppings. This of course gives but little information on the number of antelope fawns which may be consumed by coyotes. Whether or not there is too heavy a drain on the fawns from all sources can only be determined by ascertaining the fawn survival. The counts as later reported showed a good survival, sufficient no doubt to increase the size of the herd. The proportion of the fawns that are eaten as carrion or are killed by coyotes is not known; but it is certain that some of the fawns represent carrion. Under "elk" I have discussed the general mortality of new-born ungulates. Among antelope there is also no doubt that a rather definite proportion of fawns die at birth or shortly thereafter. Ranger Ben Arnold reported finding on June 19, 1931 a dead doe antelope and two dead fawns, one born and the other still unborn, and attributed death to travail during fawning. When the mother has two fawns, it may occasionally happen that one is lost. The incident cited of a fawn antelope scared away from its bed by an elk on June 4 illustrates how a fawn might be lost. Whether this one was found by its mother I did not learn but it is possible that it was lost to later become carrion.

RELATIONSHIPS OF BUCKS TO DOES AND FAWNS

During the summer it is usual to find a buck with each band of does and fawns. The buck at this season may do considerable herding of the company. Many of the bucks are alone, or in groups of two to a dozen or more. About the middle of September the rut begins and a buck with a band of does and fawns chases away all other males. If not successful in this he hangs on the outskirts of a band, or possibly wanders from one band to another. Quite often during the summer bucks have been seen chasing single does. Sometimes the run is long enough to cause both animals to pant, with mouths open. To escape the buck the doe sometimes resorts to considerable dodging. Several times in late May a buck was observed chasing a heavy doe for a distance of about 500 yards. In winter the bucks and does intermingle in various proportions, and at that time the bands are frequently breaking up and re-forming. The presence of a buck with a herd of does might insure some added protection to the fawns from coyotes.

Figure 34— Most of the sagebrush in the picture has been killed by overbrowsing.
Antelope had fed in the area on the scanty food still to be found.
Game Ranch Area, January 13, 1938.

FAWN SURVIVAL

Season of 1937.—During the summer it is not always easy to get antelope counts showing true proportion of fawns, for at that time some of the fawns or some of the does may be segregated by themselves, or several of the fawns may be following one or two does. On June 28, 1937, for example, seven fawns were following one doe. Another doe was followed by three fawns, two of them the same size, one definitely larger. At Yanceys, after making repeated counts, it was felt that a fairly good summer census of the does and fawns was obtained. Some of the more complete counts made at Yanceys are here tabulated. It will be noted that the early summer ratio was maintained throughout the summer. Yearling does are included under "doe" as it is hard to differentiate them.

Reliable counts made over same area at Yanceys

Other summer counts were made but since they were not as comprehensive they may not represent true ratios existing in the areas:

¹Apparently many yearlings.

The following tabulation shows results of two fall counts of the herd, each made over a 3-day period. There was only a slight possibility of counting any animals twice in either count.

First Count

Second Count

The ratios of adults to fawns in the two counts are 29 percent and 27 percent, respectively. It will be noted that a smaller proportion of bucks are tabulated in the first count than in the second. However, most of the 54 animals classified as "adults" were bucks (I did not have time to precisely differentiate the does and bucks before they ran off) so the doe-buck ratio was actually not very different in the two counts. The first sample represents more than half the antelope herd so the fawn ratio attained is fairly representative of the true ratio, especially since other ratios obtained in various counts during the winter lie so near this.

At various times between January 12 and May 3, 1938, animals on the winter range were classified when opportunity offered. Of 1,494 animals classified, with of course many duplications, 331 were fawns. This gives a 28 percent increase of fawns, a ratio midway between the percentages of 27 and 29 secured in the two large counts made in November. The sex of adults was identified only in a group of 443 animals, 173 being bucks with the same number of does, and 97 fawns. The percentage increase in this sample is also 28 percent.

The fawn survival during the winter was high. The ratio recorded for March, April, and May was about 4 percent higher than that for January and February. This fawn increase probably is not of statistical significance, but points to a high winter survival of young.

Season of 1938.—On July 14, 1938, I counted at Tower Falls 1 buck, 28 does, and 12 fawns. This was an incomplete census of bucks, and may also have been incomplete for does and fawns.

On August 30, I was told by some of the local people that fawns were very scarce in the Gardiner area and that it was thought the coyotes were "getting all the fawns." I made a count between Gardiner and the Game Ranch with the following results: bucks, 13; does, 38; and fawns, 27. The fawn ratio, rather than being low, was unusually high in this particular area.

The total of various counts made between July 14 and October 1 in the Gardiner, Blacktail, Yancey, Horseshoe, and Buffalo Ranch areas is as follows: bucks, 23; does, 126; and fawns, 63. If we consider the sexes of adults equal in number, which they appear to be, and assume the number of adults to be twice the doe count, the increase is about 25 percent.

Practically all of the antelope had moved down to the winter range by November 11, 1938, having come down a few days earlier than in the preceding year, probably because of the earlier arrival of cold weather and snow. Two hundred or more had moved outside the park below Reese Creek by the middle of November. One band was reported near Livingston, more than 50 miles from the park. These were seen some distance from any area where antelope were known to regularly occur. It was presumed by some people that they had wandered down from Yellowstone National Park, but the real source of these antelope was not known.

On November 12 I counted and classified 351 antelope. Of these, 202 were feeding in an alfalfa field. The fawns were no doubt especially fond of frozen alfalfa for the ratio of fawns to adults was much higher than among the antelope outside the field. On November 15 a second count was made. At this time there was still a concentration of fawns in the alfalfa field.

November 12 Count

November 15 Count

The sample count made on November 12 shows an increase in the herd due to fawns, of 30 percent. Since there was a concentration of fawns on the alfalfa field, it is difficult to know whether a true ratio was secured. However, it is possible that enough animals were counted away from the field to compensate for this concentration. The buck count is considerably lower than the doe count so perhaps the adults were not fully represented. If the percentage of increase due to fawns is based upon the assumption that the adult herd contains as many bucks as does, or a total of 310, then the increase is 26 percent.

The second count, made on November 15, is probably less representative than the first one, for there was still a concentration of fawns in the alfalfa field and a smaller number of animals were counted. The relatively high count of fawns away from the alfalfa field was due to finding one band containing a high fawn ratio which apparently had just left this field.

On February 27, 1939, 44 antelope were counted on Rattlesnake Butte, and on March 1, 519 were counted near the Game Ranch and outside the park below Reese Creek. In the latter case 495 were outside the park. There probably was no duplication in these two instances so they are tabulated together.

February 27 and March 1, 1939, Counts

As the count includes well over half the total number of antelope in Yellowstone Park it should represent a good statistical sample of the population. The increase in the herd due to fawns is 24.8 percent, this being a little less than the percentage increase in November counts and a little less than the percentage increase found in the 1937 fawns.

The survival of the 1937 and 1938 fawns appears to be sufficient to bring about an increase in the antelope population since losses of adults were apparently light.

GENERAL CONDITION OF ANTELOPE

A buck with a right hind leg broken near the calcaneum was observed on the summer range at Tower Falls in 1937 and 1938, and at Gardiner in the winter of 1937—38. Another buck with a stiff and slightly bent right foot was frequently seen at Gardiner during the spring and summer of 1938, and in March 1939. Twice during the winter of 1937—38 a doe was seen limping badly.

On one occasion, January 27, 1938, I observed an old doe that seemed unable to keep up with the moving band. She traveled with great effort.

On February 7, 1938, a doe was seen stamping her hind feet alternately and occasionally lifting one of the legs and kicking it rapidly in the air. The action may have indicated an ailment.

Several of the does and fawns lost much of the hair from their necks. One doe in this condition seemed much agitated. Several times when seen she fed nervously and led the others away. On February 28, three fawns were seen with much hair missing from their necks.

The antelope came through the winter of 1937—38 in good shape; there were no animals seen which appeared sick except the old doe seen January 27.

On November 12, 1938, two does were extremely thin and poor in coat. On one of them the hair seemed stuck together and flattened close to the hide. This one wandered restlessly all over the field apparently feeling uncomfortable. Both does probably died early in the winter. Two other does were observed, each with a decided limp in a front leg. On March 1, 1939, an extremely thin female was seen. However, the antelope generally were in good condition at this time.

Figure 35— Enclosure plot at the Game Ranch. The bare ground and dying sagebrush outside
show how closely the elk and antelope cleaned the range.
Game Ranch, April 1938.

ANTELOPE DEATHS

During the period between May 1, 1937, and May 1, 1938, the remains of 13 antelope were found. Except for remains of a fawn which apparently had died a day or two after birth, the carcasses were found on the winter range, and in the following months: one in November, one in February, two in March, five in April, two in May, and two in June. As is apparent, most of the animals had died in the spring.

In four cases only hair remains were found, so that sex and age of the animals were not determinable. Six others were old does, with teeth worn to the gums; in one case some teeth were also missing, and two of them showed a necrosis of the bone around the teeth (one of these two had also a necrosis on the tongue) three were old bucks with much worn teeth and one showed much necrosis of the bone around the molars. Five of the animals were from about one-half to three-fourths eaten when found.

Although the death of several of these antelope was ascribed to coyote depredation by some of those who had seen them in the field, the evidence for such an assumption in all cases was totally lacking. The allegations were based on such observations as "it lay in a hollow where coyotes had probably cornered it." If coyotes had killed any of these animals whose condition was determined, then it was obvious that the coyotes were killing animals already doomed to an early death of old age or disease. It seems probable that the best deduction is that these animals died directly from old age and disease.

Rush (1932, p. 105), mentions examining 13 antelope specimens. Of these, six showed necrotic ulcers in the mouth; all showed decayed teeth to a greater or less extent; four were infested with lungworms, Dictyocaulus sp., two with intestinal worms, Ostertagia sp., and Nematodirus antilocaprae, one with tapeworms, Moniezia sp., and all were infested with wood ticks. These antelope examined by Rush apparently had also died from old age and disease.

Early in October 1938 Ranger Grimm found on the Game Ranch remains of two dead animals that had been cleaned up by coyotes. In 1939 he found the remains of an adult buck soon after the shedding of its horns There was a necrosis around one of the molars.

Marguerite L. Arnold (Yellowstone Nature Notes, January 1936) gives an interesting observation of a fight between two bucks in which one of the bucks was so badly wounded that it undoubtedly died. Mr. Arnold chased away the more powerful buck and the other "stood bleeding and almost completely disemboweled." Such casualties are probably relatively rare but show another cause of mortality.

ANTELOPE-COYOTE RELATIONSHIPS

During the winter of 1937—38, I obtained relatively little information on antelope-coyote relationships. While winter conditions over most of the park were unfavorable to the ungulates, the antelope fared well because of the light snowfall on their range, which lies in a tongue of the Upper Sonoran Life Zone. Much of their range was free of snow so that low vegetation, such as Atriplex oblanceolata, was more available than usual. The antelope were in fairly good shape and perhaps on that account, at least in part, no coyote depredation was observed. Furthermore, there was much carrion available, so coyotes were not hungry. Apparently coyotes sometimes run down antelope but the condition of the victim may be a factor in causing predation. The animal might be sick or aged. Since antelope and coyotes existed together in numbers in early days it seems probable that the antelope must be constituted to take care of them selves under usual circumstances.

Observations were made at various times which give some information on coyote-antelope relations. On May 14, 1937, a buck followed a coyote, at a brisk walk, for about 150 yards. The coyote was about 150 yards ahead of the buck. From across a swale the coyote stopped briefly to watch his pursuer. The buck began to feed but the white hairs on the rump remained raised for about 2 minutes.

On August 17, 1937, at Yanceys, Martin Murie watched a coyote trot towards four does, four fawns, and a buck lying in a swale. The antelope ran up the side of the hollow, then turned in unison and chased the coyote. When coyote and antelope disappeared, a couple of hundred yards away, the antelope were only a few yards from the coyote.

On June 8, 1937, about noon, high on the ridge north of Cache Creek, I saw a buck and two coyotes together on a bare promontory. At times the coyotes were only 4 or 5 yards from the buck. Once he nearly ran down one of the coyotes by making a sudden charge, and several times he pawed the earth and lowered his horns threateningly. Once the buck stood looking at a coyote in front of him while the other sat 4 yards behind him. For a few moments all three stood surveying the Lamar Valley stretched out below and then the coyotes gradually moved off and out of sight. On an adjoining ridge a doe and fawn were resting about 200 yards apart.

On January 12, 1938, in the Turkey Pen, 24 antelope were resting 150 yards from where 2 coyotes were lying down.

Shortly before dusk on April 17, 1938, along Blacktail Deer Creek about 1-1/2 miles from the road, I saw about 100 antelope galloping easily along an open ridge in a compact band. About 200 or possibly 300 yards behind the antelope sped a lone coyote. While the chase was in sight it seemed that the coyote was rapidly being left behind. I suspect that the antelope were running because of high spirits, and the coyote may have given chase for the same reason, unless perchance it was a pup who knew no better and was galloping hopefully. On September 17, 1938, a coyote passed within 50 yards of a doe and fawn without disturbing them.

Rangers have reported seeing coyotes chasing antelope. Such chases, however, may sometimes be unimportant, for often antelope take the slightest excuse to express their exuberance in dashing over the hills. Often an entire band, and especially fawns of the year, dash wildly about in play. It is possible that under unusual conditions a healthy adult antelope might be killed by coyotes, although I have no evidence as to this possibility. Isolated cases of adults being run down by coyotes are reported but usually the circumstances arc not given or known, nor is the condition of the animal given. Thus an important element in the case is lacking.

Figure 36— The vertical line shows the postion of a former boundary fence. The range on the left, with the sagebrush nearly destroyed, had been more heavily used by antelope prior to removal of the fence.

STATUS OF ANTELOPE

The antelope in Yellowstone National Park have had protection for many years. The size of the population has undoubtedly been largely limited by the winter range. Poaching, still a factor when antelope leave the park, was no doubt important in earlier times. Bailey (1930, p. 30) states:

In 1908 about 2,000 were estimated in the park but during the following winter all but 25 escaped through the park fence below Gardiner and went down to the lower valleys, where at that time they were unprotected, and many never returned. In 1911 only 450 were counted in the park. In 1914, 600 were estimated in the park herd, and in 1916, 500. In the spring of 1917 most of these left the park and later, when driven back, only about 200 were accounted for.

Antelope counts made by rangers, 1934—38

Although the antelope have prospered and increased during the last few years, as shown by the foregoing censuses and by the fawn counts made during the last 2 years, their future is nevertheless precarious because of the deplorable state of their winter forage within the park. As is so often the case, the crux of the problem is the winter range. Good antelope range exists outside the park boundaries, which the antelope have begun to utilize, but unless this range becomes public property there is no assurance that it will be available in the future. So the solution of the antelope problem involves more winter range, with perhaps fewer elk on it.

The present area now being used outside the park, together with considerable additional range farther north, should be set aside for antelope. If the antelope are to be confined to the winter range within the park there will undoubtedly be a drastic decrease in their numbers. The coyote is not at the present time adversely affecting the antelope, nor is it preventing them from increasing, even though the herd is existing on a much over-utilized winter range.