and deer in better condition than a sample killed in 

 collisions with vehicles. Thus, predation involved more than 

 simply "weeding out the young, the sick, and the old". 



Coyotes are facultative predators that do not depend upon 

 one major prey species; they successfully use a wide variety 

 of food. Because of this, at low deer densities, coyote 

 numbers will not necessarily decline and deer populations may 

 be subject to significant predation, depending upon the 

 availability of alternate prey. Predation, combined with even 

 low-moderate levels of other mortality (e.g. hunting), can be 

 sufficient to further reduce low density deer populations or 

 at least keep them from increasing. A change in 

 circumstances, such as an increase in alternate prey 

 populations, is necessary to release the deer population from 

 the influence of predation and result in an increase in 

 density. From observations such as this, Haber (1977) 

 proposed a multiple "equilibrium" model in which predators can 

 hold a prey population at low densities, but have little 

 impact at high prey densities. 



The implications of these findings to deer population 

 management obviously will depend upon local circumstances, 

 population goals, management philosophy, and political, 

 sociological, and economic factors. At high densities of 

 deer, when alternate prey populations are nearing or at highs, 

 and/or when hunter harvests are insufficient to remove the 

 annual recruitment, managers may be unconcerned with predation 

 or even welcome it. However, if a large decline in the deer 

 population has occurred owing to severe weather or hunting, 

 the manager may want to consider the potential for management 

 actions . 



As suggested by Gasaway et al. (1983), management options 

 are limited when a large decline in ungulate populations has 

 occurred, predators are present, and the management goal is to 

 increase ungulate populations. We perceive 4 basic options. 



1. No action - The manager can wait for a natural change of 

 circumstances that releases predation pressure on deer. 

 These changes may include a large increase in the 

 availability of easily caught alternate prey, a natural 

 decline in predator populations, and/or favorable changes 

 in weather conditions . These changes could occur very 

 slowly. For example, peaks in jackrabbit populations in 

 this area may be 10+ years apart. This no action option 

 may not be considered viable by many hunters, landowners, 

 and/or managers . 



2. Limited action - Here, the manager could also reduce or 

 eliminate harvest of deer by man and wait for the same 

 natural changes in circumstances. However, this 



346 



