Volume 35, Issue 2 pp. 105-111
Tools and Technology

Hair of the dog: Obtaining samples from coyotes and wolves noninvasively

David E. Ausband

Corresponding Author

David E. Ausband

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.Search for more papers by this author
Julie Young

Julie Young

Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Barbara Fannin

Barbara Fannin

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Michael S. Mitchell

Michael S. Mitchell

United States Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, 205 Natural Sciences Building, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Jennifer L. Stenglein

Jennifer L. Stenglein

Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Lisette P. Waits

Lisette P. Waits

Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA

Search for more papers by this author
John A. Shivik

John A. Shivik

Wildland Resources Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 19 May 2011
Citations: 15

Associate Editor: Applegate

Abstract

Canids can be difficult to detect and their populations difficult to monitor. We tested whether hair samples could be collected from coyotes (Canis latrans) in Texas, USA and gray wolves (C. lupus) in Montana, USA using lure to elicit rubbing behavior at both man-made and natural collection devices. We used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to determine whether collected hair samples were from coyote, wolf, or nontarget species. Both coyotes and wolves rubbed on man-made barbed surfaces but coyotes in Texas seldom rubbed on hanging barbed surfaces. Wolves in Montana showed a tendency to rub at stations where natural-material collection devices (sticks and debris) were present. Time to detection was relatively short (5 nights and 4 nights for coyotes and wolves, respectively) with nontarget and unknown species comprising approximately 26% of the detections in both locations. Eliciting rubbing behavior from coyotes and wolves using lures has advantages over opportunistic genetic sampling methods (e.g., scat transects) because it elicits a behavior that deposits a hair sample at a fixed sampling location, thereby increasing the efficiency of sampling for these canids. Hair samples from rub stations could be used to provide estimates of abundance, measures of genetic diversity and health, and detection–nondetection data useful for cost-effective population monitoring. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.