Coyotes and Deer

[TripleR]

I can only imagine what it would cost to put vast tracts of land back to it's original condition with a diversity of wildlife to be self sustaining. We have spent more money than I care to even think about taking land out of production and planting a variety of hardwoods and pines along with open spaces of native warm season grasses. Land in my area is $5000+ per acre and much of it was once under water until the creation of the Little River Drainage District.

Many if not most states simply can't afford the loss of income to create pristine environments.

 

[jymbee]

I can only imagine what it would cost to put vast tracts of land back to it's original condition with a diversity of wildlife to be self sustaining.

Here in upstate NY at least, it would cost nothing. Large areas of forest in the valley I live in were cleared for farms a generation ago. Now all the farms are gone and any areas left unattended return to their "original condition" quite easily and within a single generation.

I've heard folks ponderinig why on earth so many stone walls were built deep in the woods. Answer? Those woods were pasture land or meadows when those walls were built.

 

[N80]

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 the dominant species. We are the only ones that ask questions about saving a planet or a species. Therefore, we are the arbiters of how the planet is used. And there is ONLY one possibility for a moral imperative for putting our interests above a tree or an elephant or a coyote. And without a moral imperative your idea about how the planet is to be used is no better than mine. The Sierra Club's position on the environment is no better than Exxon's. The moral imperative can only be transcendental.....God or a god, in other words. And this is the conundrum that liberals, particularly atheist liberals, find themselves in. They have no way to justify that their vision for the planet is any better than anyone else's

We are grossly overconfident that we can protect the planet through regulation of permitted harmful activities

What? That makes no sense. Who defines what is harmful vs what is simply practical, necessary, unpleasant or ugly? You? Why you and not me? And the only other options other than permitted harmful activities is to allow them without permit (regulation) or to STOP all of what you, or someone else decides are harmful activities. Unfortunately, much of what you would call harmful (the production of electricity, paper, and other forms of energy) ALL result in some form of harmful activity and YOU rely on them as much as the rest of us do. So "permitted harmful activities" is YOUR only option.

and today's conservatives don't really believe in regulation.

Perfect. In this gross and inaccurate stereotype you've exposed your ideological bias. Virtually no conservatives or even libertarians believe in no regulation. We believe in fair, constitutional and effective regulation. And the success of hunting as a highly regulated, taxed and vigorously enforced institution, very dear to conservatives, is proof. And the success of that institution in this country as a government AND private tool for conservation is incontrovertible and unparalleled.

And remember, as this conversation spins out of control, it was none of us who do not claim to be liberals who claimed that liberals were the only reason this planet was not a smoking cinder. That ignorance came from a liberal.

 

[jymbee]

Perfect. In this gross and inaccurate stereotype you've exposed your ideological bias.

HUH? ? You make this statement after writing:

And this is the conundrum that liberals, particularly atheist liberals, find themselves in. They have no way to justify that their vision for the planet is any better than anyone else's

Talk about your over-the-top stereotypes.

There's much to debate re. liberal vs. conservative, but the rambling, nonsensical statements that you seem so wedded to represent precisely the main obstacle to actually finding solutions.

But hey-- who am I? Just another tree hugging liberal.

Here's a truism for you to keep in mind as you reload for another convoluted post: "More often than not, FACTS have a liberal bias"

 

[dave1949]

I can only imagine what it would cost to put vast tracts of land back to it's original condition with a diversity of wildlife to be self sustaining. We have spent more money than I care to even think about taking land out of production and planting a variety of hardwoods and pines along with open spaces of native warm season grasses. Land in my area is $5000+ per acre and much of it was once under water until the creation of the Little River Drainage District.

Many if not most states simply can't afford the loss of income to create pristine environments.

Well, if left alone, the land will revert back to fairly rich habitat on its own. It will take 50-60 years minimum but the cost involved is minimal if the land can be secured.

"If the district suddenly stopped operating, within a couple of years much of the rich farmland between Sikeston and Dexter would be underwater, Dowdy said."


Securing the land is the hurdle. It's fairly common now for land/wildlife trusts to purchase conservation easements that do not allow development. Every area is different of course, but here the land continues in timber production usually. They swap parcels around to get the best un-fragmented habitat possible. So, even if your land is not critical habitat, the easement gives them something to swap with to get better land. Some of the funding comes from donations, some from fund raising, some is land that is willed-over as part of an estate, some is tax dollars, such as our Land For Maine's Future bond program which gets good voter support.

I don't know how common this is with in-production farm lands where the land costs more and produces food for people. Obviously, smart choices need to be made.

Interesting bit of American history. The Little River Drainage District: seMissourian.com: Local News: A landscape transformed by the Little River Drainage District (11/04/07) Thanks for identifying that, seems like the usual cast of characters were involved from the Feds to the railroads to the bootleggers :laughing:

 

[N80]

Dave, here are your words:

By the way, without liberals, there wouldn't be much that's wild and clean left in this country. For that, you should be thankful.

It is so grossly untrue because it is a blanket statement. All I have to do to refute it is to show one example of a non-liberal group that has contributed to conservation. So here you go: Ducks Unlimited. Not liberal....clearly....and yet have made a huge impact on land preservation, conservation and improvements in many species (not just ducks) of waterfowl. This is true and there is readily available and easily reproducible proof. You statement is therefore not only false, but smacks of propaganda and consumption of the Kool-aid.

We have not eliminated small pox: Three children die of smallpox in Khairpur | The Nation But, that is being picky.

Yes, it is picky, (since both Russia and the US maintain small pox as a potential weapon) and it also misses the point which is that we try, with almost universal consent amongst liberals and conservatives, to eliminate or vastly diminish some species.

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.

Your initial facts are correct. Your conclusion is false. There were virtually no deer upstate SC in the 1950s. The region was highly farmed and massively logged. These were not sufficient to maintain a large deer population. It was not until active wildlife management, transplanting deer and increasing revenue from hunting related state and federal revenue did populations rebound. The program was immensely successful. Similar efforts were made in Georgia as well. The same was true for wild turkey. In both cases, active management was the key to success....not prevailing conditions

It is non-liberals--whatever you wish to call them--who constantly promote and politically defend the very actions that degrade the planet.

This is not only wrong, it is naive and sad. Again, you phrase your argument with a broad, generalized statement that is defeated by exceptions, which abound. Plenty of liberals have opposed various environmental legislation if it does not fit their local needs or doesn't grease their palms sufficiently. Likewise, conservatives have supported legislation, often because it is appropriate and often because it suits their personal need or greed. Furthermore, a great deal of the most recent legislation is based on dubious science which is used as a tool to promote political ideology in the name of "saving the planet". Such legislation is almost always 'outed' by its beneficiaries.....Solindra comes to mind.

So there is simply NO justification for you gross generalizations about who is and who isn't helping this planet. And your arguments are defeated, thoroughly, by a simple list of PRIVATELY funded organizations such as DU, the Wild Turkey Federation, various Elk Foundations.

 

[N80]

HUH? ? You make this statement after writing:

"And this is the conundrum that liberals, particularly atheist liberals, find themselves in. They have no way to justify that their vision for the planet is any better than anyone else's"


Talk about your over-the-top stereotypes.

I can defend the statement with ease. It is THE most difficult philosophical challenge faced by environmentalists. It is a matter of legitimacy. It can be danced around and it can be covered up, but it cannot ultimately ignored. Would be glad to discuss it privately at any time, it is an area of personal interest.

There's much to debate re. liberal vs. conservative, but the rambling, nonsensical statements that you seem so wedded to represent precisely the main obstacle to actually finding solutions.

But hey-- who am I?

Who are you? YOU are the one that made the blanket statement the liberals are the only force for care for the planet and its wildlife. Remember?

Here's a truism for you to keep in mind as you reload for another convoluted post:

Just because you don't understand them does not make the convoluted.

"More often than not, FACTS have a liberal bias"

And the FACT is that liberals believe that is a 'truism'.

Anyway, you and I have pretty much ruined this thread. If you would like to discuss this privately I'm more than happy and able to.

 

[westcliffe01]

This is from an ongoing study that is not yet complete.
Experts surprised by which predator is No. 1 killer of deer in Michigan's Upper Peninsula | MLive.com
By Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press
Published: Monday, April 02, 2012, 8:00 AM

ESCANABA — Michigan hunters have been known to say that state’s growing wolf population is bad for deer. Their lament is about the diminished Upper Peninsula whitetail population. It’s not unusual to hear someone claim: “Wolf are eating all the deer.”

But what researchers found this past winter, the third year of a western U.P. deer mortality study, is that coyotes were the No. 1 predator followed by bobcats. Wolves came in fourth after a three-way tie among hunters, unknown predators and undetermined causes.

“I was somewhat surprised to see coyotes play as large a role in fawn predation as they did...,” said Jerry Belant, an associate professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management at Mississippi State University. Belant oversees student researchers who are working in partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. He said coyotes were more prevalent than expected. There were also few rabbits and hares to feed upon.

Researchers got their data from 142 fawns fitted with GPS collars. The devices transmitted their location every 15 minutes. Eighty collared fawns died during the three year first phase of the study. Predators killed 73 percent of the deer.

The study aims to identify just what is killing UP deer. Phase 1 took place in a region known for “low snow” depths. Phase 2 and 3 will look at mid- and high-snow zones.

“We wanted to look at the role of predation and winter habitat on fawn survival,” said Dean Beyer, a wildlife researcher with Michigan’s DNR.

Agency staff have long said that wolves play a small role in deer mortality. Biologists estimate the UP deer population at 270,000. Cars and hunters kill roughly 64,000. Wolves kill 17,000 to 29,000 deer. An estimated 687 gray wolves live in the Upper Peninsula, according to the DNR’s website.

“We jumped into the UP because of the deer population trends,” Beyer said. “The herd did well in the early '90s. Then we had two severe winters back to back (in the mid 90s) and the population dropped and stayed flat and hasn’t rebounded.

“Winter weather is a driver up there. Lake Superior is a snow making machine. It creates deep snows close to the lake and the snow depths decline as you move away.”

Severe UP winters can kill 30 percent or more of the deer population. So researchers collared both fawns and predators. The GPS data was plotted on a map. When a cluster appeared, students went out to the site to see what they could find.

Belant and Beyer discovered two packs of wolves in the area. But they also found something else: nine livestock pits where farmers dumped dead cattle.

“They (wolves) were hitting carcasses,” Beyer said. “That influenced the predation on fawns and might have reduced it. It will be interesting to see what happens in the mid-snow zone where there is no agriculture or cattle dump.”

Phase 2 begins next winter in Iron County, Phase 1, in Delta and Menominee counties, collected predator data points for 650,000 locations, Beyer said.

“We’re pretty pleased with how things worked out. The one thing that surprised us a little was finding that bobcats were very efficient predators. Their kill rate was higher than we expected.”

Wolves, on the other hand, were expected to score higher. That they didn’t has researchers wondering what will show up next year.

Brent Rudolph, the DNR’s deer program manager, said he expects wolves will play a bigger role in deer predation.

“We went into an area not as heavily used by wolves,” he said. “As we shift study sites into areas with more wolves there will be more wolf mortality. Coyotes won’t be as effective in those areas because wolves will outright exclude coyotes on the kill.”

It is fair to say that having wolves on the landscape stirs emotions for many. Wolves are feared, reviled and revered; the root of all that would take up another column — maybe two.

So let me say I am glad to see this study moving forward. The first phase results are enlightening. The rest will tell us what we need to know.

 

[westcliffe01]

This info came from a guy who traps fur bearers in the UP

This is 4 weeks worth of catch prior to firearm deer season. Those are coyote pelts and a few fox, no wolves, before any speculation starts.


Hope this one gives you perspective on size


The guy caught many wolves too, but they all get released.

 

[Redbug]

Hi George and the gang...

I have talked with Charles Ruth, (our SC state deer biologist), about coyotes. He said that he thinks that there may be a 75 percent mortality rate with the fawns down here too, because of coyotes preying on them. State biologists are watching the deer harvests to see if changes may need to be made in the future. Where I hunt, we have coyotes all around. We have decided to not harvest as many does this year, just in case. I know coyotes prey on small hogs, (I have heard their squeals and seen the coyotes chasing them). It is good they take pigs. Any predator is opportunistic...that is the nature of the beast.

I don't think shooting a few coyotes on your property will drastically change the outcome in the long range scope of things. And I think things will balance out after some time. If you had low numbers of coyotes, you may control them for a while. But in the long run, it's like holding back the tide with a pitch fork. I think we need to learn to live with them and find other ways of us adapting.

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.