Coyotes and Deer

[dave1949]

All of the space IS "our" space. Who else's could it be? That's why most people feel like the space needs to be protected and that we are the ones that have to do it. So not sure what your point is. And sure we often try to eliminate species. We've been successful with small pox and we've tried real hard with mosquitos. But that is a pretty silly concern in the context of this conversation...at least where I live. Deer populations are quite large and healthy. Coyote populations are EXPLODING and in such a way that they are jeopardizing the existence of a number of other species....specifically foxes. So management, by humans, becomes and issue.

We have not eliminated small pox: Three children die of smallpox in Khairpur | The Nation But, that is being picky. Deer populations in the East benefit from timber harvesting, from farmlands, and from rural sprawl which increases deer feeding ability, leaves the deer and removes the predators. Those facts have a lot more to do with post-Columbian deer populations than hunting or wildlife management plans supported by hunting. In fact, deer populations have exploded beyond any ability of traditional hunting control, present a health danger to humans via Lyme Disease, and economic damage to agriculture. It's hard to characterize that as successful management.

This is patently untrue and unsupportable. Much of the conservation efforts done in the early 20th century had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone would call a liberal. Furthermore, the greatest positive impact on wildlife in this country, now and in the last 75 or so years, has come directly from resources associated with hunting and game management. Sure there are liberal hunters......but far, far fewer than conservative ones. So let's not descend into hyperbole about liberals saving the planet....it just won't float.

It is not hyperbole. It is non-liberals--whatever you wish to call them--who constantly promote and politically defend the very actions that degrade the planet. They are attacking the Clean Air and Water Act, they would permit strip mining anywhere, they would drill for gas and oil in National Parks, the list goes on and on. Without constant opposition from liberals to these activities, there would be very little that is wild or clean. Part of your confusion is because those conservatives who, in the past championed planet-saving ideas, are not today's conservatives. Would you call the Bristol Bay, AK Pebble Mine proposal a target for today's conservatives? It is a target for groups like the NRDC who would certainly be defined by liberalism. Sure, there are several trout and fisheries groups joining the battle, but where are their conservative supporters in the political bodies that make the decisions? Where are the conservatives who would insist that fracking comes under the Clean Water Act? Fracking uses and pollutes enormous amounts of water, but it's not an area of concern to the EPA? C'mon George, what you are selling is nonsense.


Again, this is a bit silly. You might as well say the same thing about cock roaches. The one thing that is virtually indisputed by everyone is that almost nothing that humans can or will do will diminish coyote populations to a level of concern. It just is not possible.



This is correct, but herbivores have been managed with HUGE success by humans alone. There are more whitetail deer on this continent that when columbas arrived. Entirely due to managed hunting. Coyotes as a form of deer management is like managing a chicken coop with a weasel.

The question of what is "our space" is simple: Where do humans draw the line when balancing the needs of our species against others? When is it in our own best long-term interests to promote the health of a biologically diverse planet? Where does the "death of a thousand cuts" end? That is exactly what we are doing to the planet every time we are not willing to draw an absolute line in the sand that says, "This is out of bounds."

We are grossly overconfident that we can protect the planet through regulation of permitted harmful activities, and today's conservatives don't really believe in regulation. That is not the fault of today's liberals. If you want to have a rebirth of true conservatism, liberals are not stopping you.

 

[N80]

The deer ate it!

Carnivorous deer. What next?

 

[tractchores]

My theory is they ate it because it was cooked and maybe salty. We always joke that the deer here will eat anything you leave outside.

 

[westcliffe01]

The part that all liberals conveniently forget to mention is that hunting results in spending of $1.5Bn per week, which will disappear and have to be replaced by taxes, if the same degree of game management as today is to be maintained. Without the hunters harvesting the animals in excess of land carrying capacity in winter, all those animals would starve and die and their millions of corpses would litter the landscape. That sounds like a heck of an alternative to the system we have in place now. Yet that is what the Sierra club and others are after.

We are grossly overconfident that we can protect the planet through regulation of permitted harmful activities, and today's conservatives don't really believe in regulation. That is not the fault of today's liberals. If you want to have a rebirth of true conservatism, liberals are not stopping you.

 

[sdkubota]

It's not about reality and proven facts...it's about feelings. Their programs always fail and bring misery yet they continue down the same path hoping for different results this time.

 

[dave1949]

The part that all liberals conveniently forget to mention is that hunting results in spending of $1.5Bn per week, which will disappear and have to be replaced by taxes, if the same degree of game management as today is to be maintained. Without the hunters harvesting the animals in excess of land carrying capacity in winter, all those animals would starve and die and their millions of corpses would litter the landscape. That sounds like a heck of an alternative to the system we have in place now. Yet that is what the Sierra club and others are after.

Oh, come on, that is emotion talking.

First of all, it is part of nature that the old, weak, sick and starving, in their deaths, provide a part of the food web for other species.

Second, your premise is that hunting is the only way to manage wildlife. It's true that since humans became omnivores, they have hunted, and some species have been hunted to extinction by humans. No one knows how many other co-dependent species were eliminated as a result. But, in environments less impacted by humans, the wildlife has managed itself for a long, long time. Where do the imbalances occur? Exactly where human impact is the greatest: from the oceans to the grassland prairies.

It's also true that wildlife management driven by hunting revenues is more often done to optimize hunting revenues, not to optimize balanced, healthy and self-sustaining biodiversity.

I am not against hunting or the culling of the occasional nuisance predator. At the same time, we are supposed to be smart enough to realize what we don't know, cannot do, and probably never will be able to do with regards to wildlife. I believe we need to create reservoirs of habitat that are as wild as they can possibly be and maintained. The way to do that is by setting aside large areas and keeping human impacts away from them. Unfortunately, to some, that just looks like a bunch of wasted land and lost short-term profits--and they are no friends to hunters.

 

[/pine]

IMO...The revenues generated from the sale of hunting licenses and permits are some of the most effective and well spent by the government period.

http://www.nssf.org/lit/HunterConservation10.pdf
see page 11

AMTRAK and the USPS should take a lesson from the DNR...

 

[tnmike]

I have personally witnessed coyotes pack hunting adult deer including bucks in eastern tennessee. I did not see those kills but have found numerous deer kills in the last 15 years . . The latest one being about two weeks ago. I have a friend in western nc who just lost two calves to coyotes. No doubt about any of this.

I killed a female coyote about five years ago float hunting a river in western nc for ducks in 20 F weather. She was swimming just off the bank. I had the skin tanned with the hair on. It measures 68 inches from its nose to the tip of its tail. I did not weigh it but guesstimate its weight at 50 lbs plus.This was a FEMALE.....that folks is a serious predator. There is some speculation that the attempt at reintroducing the red wolf into the smokey mtn national park did nothing but create a super coyote. The fur was black, light brown and red. Not the usual western gray coyote color. I have seen many like it since then. I have also seen almost pure black ones and mostly gray ones.

I personally shoot every one I see. They are very destructive. No doubt about it.

 

[westcliffe01]

The problem is that man has already occupied so much land. Unless one is going to suggest that the government should take back the land by eminent domain and bulldoze all of the subdivisions and tear out all of the fences and highways, the fact is that wildlife has what it has.

Why exactly is it considered more acceptable to allow animals to starve and freeze to death, as opposed to allowing others to pay to shoot them ? In Michigans upper peninsula, all deer/human interaction (including road kill) comes to 64k/year. A mere 687 wolves accounts for between 17-29k/year. Winter weather accounts for between 35k to 105k deaths per year depending on the severity of the winter. Source here DNR - The Impacts of Wolves on Deer in the Upper Peninsula For me, at the cost of $15 + a cartridge, I can get a lot of meat in the freezer. Meat that is free of antibiotics, corn, steroids, saline injections or whatever else we have to put up with (sanctioned by the FDA) at the supermarket.

How many years does one suppose it will take to double the predator population ? it has not been long since wolves were re-introduced and that followed years of denials that there were any wolves in the first place. Doing so will result in a greater kill rate for wolves than any amount of human deer interaction. And there is a further problem, which is that people will be discouraged about the prospect of driving 5-6 hours to go and hunt, when the prospect of getting a deer are substantially reduced. the result will be a sharp decline in hunting activity and that in turn will be a major blow to the economics of the area which is very much centered around outdoor activities.

This article, by the DNR illustrates how the current system of quotas came into being and how the conservation of the species is being funded by hunters, which includes land acquisition, development of suitable browse etc after a few disastrous attempts to manage the deer herd without scientific basis. DNR - Deer Management History in Michigan

 

[dave1949]

The problem is that man has already occupied so much land. Unless one is going to suggest that the government should take back the land by eminent domain and bulldoze all of the subdivisions and tear out all of the fences and highways, the fact is that wildlife has what it has.

Why exactly is it considered more acceptable to allow animals to starve and freeze to death, as opposed to allowing others to pay to shoot them ? In Michigans upper peninsula, all deer/human interaction (including road kill) comes to 64k/year. A mere 687 wolves accounts for between 17-29k/year. Winter weather accounts for between 35k to 105k deaths per year depending on the severity of the winter. Source here DNR - The Impacts of Wolves on Deer in the Upper Peninsula For me, at the cost of $15 + a cartridge, I can get a lot of meat in the freezer. Meat that is free of antibiotics, corn, steroids, saline injections or whatever else we have to put up with (sanctioned by the FDA) at the supermarket.

How many years does one suppose it will take to double the predator population ? it has not been long since wolves were re-introduced and that followed years of denials that there were any wolves in the first place. Doing so will result in a greater kill rate for wolves than any amount of human deer interaction. And there is a further problem, which is that people will be discouraged about the prospect of driving 5-6 hours to go and hunt, when the prospect of getting a deer are substantially reduced. the result will be a sharp decline in hunting activity and that in turn will be a major blow to the economics of the area which is very much centered around outdoor activities.

This article, by the DNR illustrates how the current system of quotas came into being and how the conservation of the species is being funded by hunters, which includes land acquisition, development of suitable browse etc after a few disastrous attempts to manage the deer herd without scientific basis. DNR - Deer Management History in Michigan

Why do you think that man will not continue to occupy more and more land? Goes back to my statement about what when all the space is "our space." You can see from the DNR deer mngt. history that providing habitat is the key to sustainability, the same solution that applies in Maine. I recognize the political difficulty of selling the idea of habitat preserves of public land, but it all depends on public values. The science-supported answer may be to reclaim (from development) key habitat areas.

Other than depriving other species like bear, badger, ravens, fox, coyotes and wolves of food, I don't think it cruel to shoot versus starving or freezing. Cruel is a human emotion that you are applying to a natural cycle. Given quality habitat and balance between predator and prey, there will be a lot less starving and freezing. Hunting is not the only way to achieve that.

Predator populations are dependent upon prey populations. If the number of deer is relatively constant, the predator numbers will be also. It is literally impossible for predator populations to expand beyond their food availability. Coyote studies prove their breeding rate and success is closely linked to available food. What you may really be asking is, "Why should a wolf get preference over a hunter?"

If we do not preserve large chunks of quality habitat, the eventual result cannot be anything but glorified deer farming that will bear little resemblance to true nature. We should try to avoid that outcome.