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.

 

[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.