Coyotes and Deer

[N80]

I'm not concerned about the pelt. Not even sure if the pelts are worth anything around here. I'm assuming the coats are not nearly as lush in warmer climates....although the one I shot the other day seemed okay. Anyway...not collecting pelts and the .308 made a big hole in the last one I shot.

My Dad killed several with buck shot. Just hid real well and called them up close. He said buck shot rolls them.

 

[Jstpssng]

Yet when they live trap them to study or relocate, that's what they usd. (I'll bet they also have a tranq gun though)
A choke stick is a little different than the noose around the broom handle in that once you tighten the loop you can stand out of reach until he calms down. Probably get thrashed a bit in the meantime though.
Have you ever had to let your dog out of a leghold? I would have a heavy shirt coat handy to throw over their head, just in case. (Not necessary with my last dog at least, but still a good precaution.)

Landowner's Guide: Edges and Fragments
Dave, most species don't need the seclusion that you talk about; they adapt and often thrive becauseof our activity.

 

[dave1949]

<snip>

Landowner's Guide: Edges and Fragments
Dave, most species don't need the seclusion that you talk about; they adapt and often thrive becauseof our activity.

Habitat Planning, Working With Neighbors:
"As more and more land is converted to houses, highways, and shopping centers, wildlife habitats become fragmented and isolated. This fragmentation makes it difficult for wildlife to find the right combination of habitat components necessary for their survival."

Species Management, Whitetail Deer:
"White-tailed deer live in every county in Michigan and use many different habitats across the state. Their ability to use a variety of habitats was one of the factors that allowed the deer herd to grow from a half million animals in 1972 to nearly two million in 1989. To outdoor enthusiasts who watch or hunt deer, this is exciting. However, to others, deer are considered to be a management problem. For instance, many areas of the state are overpopulated with white-tailed deer and for some farmers, fruit growers, and rural landowners, high numbers of white-tails pose an economic problem. They may also have a tremendous negative impact on our plant communities. Therefore, as deer populations increase, there is an inevitable result of habitat deterioration, lowered deer production and health, and frequent deer die-off. Too many deer also make for unsafe driving conditions. Thus, consider these negative impacts before deciding to manage for deer. Remember that your decisions will affect not only yourself, but also your neighbors."

Edge Management:
"Before European settlement, Michigan's historical ecosystems included edges and fragments. However, today there is a large amount of habitat fragmentation, especially in the Lower Peninsula, due to the addition of nearly 10 million people to the state. As a result of habitat fragmentation, many edge-loving species have become abundant, while edge-sensitive species have reduced in numbers."

Your conclusion regarding seclusion isn't what I take away from the info.

With regards to edge habitat, the gist seems to be there was once less of it, now there is more due to fragmentation, if there is to be more by necessity of human use, it should be well-managed to be as beneficial as possible. In other words, make the best of the remaining degraded habitat. That is an admirable goal. I bet a lot of us do that.

Naturally, some species will benefit by changing the landscape, and some will not. But that isn't the same as just setting aside areas and letting them be wild. Those wild areas will revert to as near a truly natural species and plant life condition as possible. Even then, the plant and animal make-up is going to be continually changing due to natural causes, and there really is no place on the globe that human influences have zero impact.

Woolly Adelgid on hemlock is an example. Milder winters are thought to be allowing it to spread inland and northward. As it does so, the number of hemlocks will decrease, and whatever finds a use for hemlock will also be under stress. Some other plant will take over the hemlock niche, often found adjacent to wet areas in this area. Something will benefit from that next plant, maybe. We could have large tracts of wild forest that are still not totally immune from external changes.

There is a natural balance to relatively undisturbed nature. It is absurd to think that deer hunters know how many deer or deer predators there are supposed to be. They know they would like to have plenty of deer to hunt, but that's a different question that leads down a much different solution path. Managing wildlife for the benefit of one or two species is really farming or ranching.

 

[J35]

Hi George and the gang...





As an aside, here's some interesting information just being researched on coyotes...
Researchers have found the increase in lyme disease mirrors the drop in red fox numbers. That is...Coyotes kill foxes. Foxes eat mice. No foxes means more mice. More mice means more bacteria-carrying ticks. More bacteria-carrying ticks means more lyme disease. We don't have a problem with lyme disease in SC yet, but something to think about.
Researchers find increase in Lyme disease mirrors drop in red fox numbers - UC Santa Cruz

It's amazing how one change causes other changes, (some unknown), on down the line. Like a game of dominoes.

I find it interesting that the researchers don't mention Grey Fox--- does anyone else?

---J

 

[Ken45101]

Now i'd need a really good reason to shoot a coyote. They help keep the rodents and rabbits down around here.

We have never had many rabbits around here, I assume the coyotes have already eliminated most of them.

 

[J35]

Yet when they live trap them to study or relocate, that's what they usd. (I'll bet they also have a tranq gun though)
A choke stick is a little different than the noose around the broom handle in that once you tighten the loop you can stand out of reach until he calms down. Probably get thrashed a bit in the meantime though.
Have you ever had to let your dog out of a leghold? I would have a heavy shirt coat handy to throw over their head, just in case. (Not necessary with my last dog at least, but still a good precaution.)

.

I will let you in on a little trade secret, a cheap 3/8 poly rope with a slip knot for a noose will choke down any animal that you can get the rope around it's neck, and you can drop the rope once tight on the neck, it won't relax.

I have released coyotes, Javelina, cougar, badger, raccoon, Coati Mundi, dogs of all sizes and descriptions from foot hold traps by myself with just eight feet of 3/8 poly rope, never had a animal die or got a scare or scratch to myself in 12 trapping seasons, Oct.- Feb.for me.

For me when dealing with wild animal's many miles off the beaten path my safety and convenience are number 1.

Choke sticks are a burden and dangerous IMO, but better than nothing.

Have fun --J

 

[N80]

There is a natural balance to relatively undisturbed nature. It is absurd to think that deer hunters know how many deer or deer predators there are supposed to be. They know they would like to have plenty of deer to hunt, but that's a different question that leads down a much different solution path. Managing wildlife for the benefit of one or two species is really farming or ranching.

There are so many problems with these few sentences. The first sentence contains most of them:

There is a natural balance to relatively undisturbed nature.

First, it is self-referent. Its like saying that there is a natural balance to natural balance. Or like saying red things are red. So yes, it is a true statement but it doesn't really say anything except in the context of environmentalism. And then it is a loaded statement that presumes some sort of utopian status in nature when man is removed from the equation. This is patently absurd when by their own definition man is just one of among millions of evolved species. If we humans are evolved and not created then we are as much apart of nature as a deer or a coyote. We are no more destructive (in a moral sense) in what we do to nature than a beaver, a fire ant or an elm blight fungus. There is NOTHING that we can do that is unnatural because we ARE nature.

So if you appeal to our higher intellectual status as the element that raises us above nature (supernatural) that is fine. But if we are somehow above it and somehow have some form of responsibility then we have to decide what the natural balance is to be. If we are the only arbiters of what a "natural balance" looks like then we have to do some things and not do others until that balance looks the way we think it should. That is management. And if the only thing that gives us that "responsibility" is our evolved intellectual capacity then the opinion of what constitutes a natural balance is eternally open for debate. My idea of natural balance is no better or worse than yours. So if I think lots of deer sounds good that is just as legitimate (and VASTLY more practical) than some ill-defined notion of "natural balance".

And the thing that I find most offensive is that those who make claims on a vision of "natural balance" see those claims as somehow dogmatic or as moral imperatives. And yet, when you ask them to justify that, what answer can they give? Dave, what of it? And even more frustrating is when you ask them to specify what that "natural balance" looks like. Of course there is no answer to that question, for two reasons. First, because "natural balance" is a meaningless euphemism. Nature is constantly in flux. The very notion of evolution depends on that flux. It also typically refers to some nostalgic idea of what nature looked like before we (natural creatures) impacted it. At what point in time did nature reach a point at which it is the way it should remain forever? There is no specific definition or even criteria for that balance because we don't really know what nature looked like before us. The second reason the question cannot be answered is that as soon as anyone actually defines "natural balance" they are doing so with a bias of what they think it should look like and logic dictates that their vision is no more legitimate than anyone else's.

It is absurd to think that deer hunters know how many deer or deer predators there are supposed to be.

Absolutely, 100% correct and right on the nose. It also misses a critical point regarding deer management and environmentalism. Deer hunters don't claim to know how many deer there are "supposed" to be, nor do they claim to or even seek to know how many deer there are "supposed" to be. They know how many deer they WANT to be. And I bet you any one of them will admit that. And sadly, your statement about the absurdity of knowing how many deer there are "supposed" to be is another intellectual pitfall of environmentalism. Dave, do you know how many deer there are supposed to be? Warning, this is a trick question. If you say no then you can make no claims about what natural balance is supposed to look like. If you say yes, then you're just as absurd as your fictional deer hunter. The point is none of us know what nature is supposed to look like. At least the deer hunter has the (possibly subconscious) intellectual honesty to admit that his vision of nature is simply the way he wants it. Will the thoughtful environmentalist make the same admission?

Managing wildlife for the benefit of one or two species is really farming or ranching.

You are almost right. It should read that managing wildlife is really farming. Period. Any management that we do is for our own self interest whether that interest is shooting deer or establishing a vision of pre-human nature. Period.

 

[Jesse masterson]

I'd go 270 all the way , great cartridge even for coyotes if pelt damage is no concern.308second.

 

[dave1949]

N80 George: And the thing that I find most offensive is that those who make claims on a vision of "natural balance" see those claims as somehow dogmatic or as moral imperatives. And yet, when you ask them to justify that, what answer can they give? Dave, what of it? And even more frustrating is when you ask them to specify what that "natural balance" looks like. Of course there is no answer to that question, for two reasons. First, because "natural balance" is a meaningless euphemism. Nature is constantly in flux

George, I don't have a pre-defined vision of what natural balance is supposed to be, or not supposed to be, that is the entire point. It will be what it will be and I can live with the mystery and ambiguity. It is not for me to define that. I don't think it is for humans to define, and maybe that is where we differ. Ambiguity does not equate to meaningless-ness.

I am fairly certain, like 99.999%, that we evolved, but since the finer points of how that occurred--like who exactly and when they were in our family tree--are yet to be fully understood, I leave room for future knowledge. Your statement "There is NOTHING that we can do that is unnatural because we ARE nature" is true to a large extent but fails to account for the fact that we, perhaps uniquely, are capable of destroying ourselves, and it is not natural for a species to seek to extinguish itself. I assume we want to avoid that result, even though there is no rule of nature that would prevent that outcome.

Environmentalism is one approach to avoiding self destruction. It is not dogmatic or based on a moral imperative, it is understanding the history of our actions and interpreting the results. If we want to survive, then this is not to be a philosophical interpretation of results, it is hard facts that matter. Can we drink the water, can we breathe the air, do the oceans supply food, is our land productive, are there too many of us, and so forth. These are practical concerns, not philosophical paradoxes.

I don't think you read this very carefully if you want to inform me about nature in flux and evolution:
"Naturally, some species will benefit by changing the landscape, and some will not. But that isn't the same as just setting aside areas and letting them be wild. Those wild areas will revert to as near a truly natural species and plant life condition as possible. Even then, the plant and animal make-up is going to be continually changing due to natural causes, and there really is no place on the globe that human influences have zero impact."

 

[IslandTractor]

So I have no idea what to believe about coyotes and their interaction with deer. Was what my wife and I saw actual 'pack' hunting? It certainly was not cooperative pack hunting like wolves but it was still more than one coyote following the same game. Where they really chasing this deer for food or just because they are dog-like and chase stuff? Can a coyote out-last a deer enough to finally catch it and then take it down? How many coyotes does it take to take down a healthy adult deer....which can fight really hard and be dangerous when cornered. Why would a hungry coyote expend that much energy (long chase, dangerous take down) when we are swimming in rabbits and mice?

Would be interested in any reliable info about coyotes vs adult deer. I'd be willing to guess that we don't really know a whole lot of cold hard info about coyote behavior.

I live on an island that at various times has been over run with 1) deer, 2) rabbits and has variable populations of coyotes and foxes. The island is close enough to the mainland that deer and coyotes and foxes are able to swim or in some winters walk over to reintroduce their species.

Observations: With plenty of foxes and no coyotes, there were few rabbits but the island was grossly overpopulated with deer including lame animals. Once coyotes were reintroduced, the deer population took a steep dive. We were quite sure that the coyotes were responsible for most of the deer kills as there are no other predators capable of taking down a deer and the bow hunters keep very reliable records (the game warden stands at the ferry to see what is leaving the island) and the limits on deer are pretty well enforced.

Along with the decline in deer, the rabbit population exploded. The fox population declined dramatically about the same time (coyotes will kill foxes). It is my understanding that coyotes are not nearly as efficient as foxes at hunting rabbits. The rabbits are too quick.

So we went over the course of about five years from gross deer excess (deer eating everyone's garden, standing in the road, seeing perhaps a dozen deer each evening walking from forest to pasture) to the point where you can go a day without a deer sighting but they are certainly around. Foxes used to be a common sight but are now rarely seen. Rabbits are more abundant. Feral cats are less common. People with little dogs are very cautious. No human coyote interaction but we hear them nightly.