"Compensatory Reproduction" in Coyotes, why killing them equals more coyotes and less deer

[SAJ-99]

I dont think anyone would argue that skipping predator control for a year wouldnt result in them coming back, im missing the point you are trying to make. And while they do eat other things - the target things like sheep/deer during fawning.

My point is it makes sense that it doesn’t matter the time of year you kill them just that you have to kill them every year. Cost and effort become the main factor.

Regarding the last sentence or that small game populations didn’t matter, I’m going to give the side-eye on that. I want to see a complete study. Making a conclusion on a variable of the study from the data is a common problem. Then consider that both small and large game will be affected simultaneously by other variables (weather, fire). I’m not going to claim it is the same for all predators but coyotes eat a lot of different stuff. They pick what is easiest. If mice and voles are plentiful, no reason to risk a hoof to the face for a meal. In a good weather season with more fawns, then you need to control for that. But yes, predators probably slow MD population rebounds a bit.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Regarding the last sentence or that small game populations didn’t matter, I’m going to give the side-eye on that.

youre not allowed to question scienitific studies here.

The larger point- i dont think theres definitive settled science as some have claimed - that supports the hypothesis that killing coyotes (when and where does matter, but where matters more than when according to the study) makes no positive difference in deer populations.

 

[SAJ-99]

youre not allowed to question scienitific studies here.

The larger point- i dont think theres definitive settled science as some have claimed - that supports the hypothesis that killing coyotes (when and where does matter, but where matters more than when according to the study) makes no positive difference in deer populations.

Agreed, because we want the answer to one of the variables when there are a dozen variables. We haven't even discussed habitat change, where a field of grass and sage brush gets turned into a corn or wheat field. The does drop their fawns on a smaller piece of covered land the coyotes are like a kid in a candy store. Again, this has been studied a lot longer on ducks. Check studies with DU. Habitat ends up being the key, and it is hard to find land that isn't developed, plowed, or grazed.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Agreed, because we want the answer to one of the variables when there are a dozen variables. We haven't even discussed habitat change, where a field of grass and sage brush gets turned into a corn or wheat field. The does drop their fawns on a smaller piece of covered land the coyotes are like a kid in a candy store. Again, this has been studied a lot longer on ducks. Check studies with DU. Habitat ends up being the key, and it is hard to find land that isn't developed, plowed, or grazed.

So does shooting them help?

Or do you care - and youre gonna squeeze on em anyway?

I shot one in the ass (make sure your red dots have batteries) in may harassing some does. Not sure if it made a difference. Maybe. More likely than the ones i dumped last fall. Im still gonna send lead on them.

 

[SAJ-99]

So does shooting them help?

Or do you care - and youre gonna squeeze on em anyway?

To quote your study, helps marginally. I don't shoot them, but don't hold it against those that do. Do your thing.

The whole study is not controversial, or even interesting. The question really is the cost/benefit of implementing the conclusions below. The problem scientists who do these things have is that they can't eat the sunk cost, so some sort of conclusion is coming one way or the other. If they spent money to shoot coyotes does it mean more tags? And how long before the additional tags drops the population back to the level the habitat could support?

Our results underscore the need for coyote removal programs to (1) employ removal efforts over consecutive years to maximize effectiveness, (2) conduct spatially explicit removal efforts targeting fawning habitat, and (3) occur when the likelihood of additive mortality is high and prey populations have the resources available to grow.

 

[Bonasababy]

My point is it makes sense that it doesn’t matter the time of year you kill them just that you have to kill them every year. Cost and effort become the main factor.

Regarding the last sentence or that small game populations didn’t matter, I’m going to give the side-eye on that. I want to see a complete study. Making a conclusion on a variable of the study from the data is a common problem. Then consider that both small and large game will be affected simultaneously by other variables (weather, fire). I’m not going to claim it is the same for all predators but coyotes eat a lot of different stuff. They pick what is easiest. If mice and voles are plentiful, no reason to risk a hoof to the face for a meal. In a good weather season with more fawns, then you need to control for that. But yes, predators probably slow MD population rebounds a bit.

Not every year...year round.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The question really is the cost/benefit of implementing the conclusions below.[/I]

Ive got no idea how you could say that?

The majority of posters in this thread, including you, stated it makes no difference. The hypothesis drifted quite a bit - typical of HT.

Oh well - soon you and a extra whiney nr from washington will call the wambulance about R tag prices with no context.

 

[El Jason]

Oh well - soon you and an extra whiney nr from washington will call the wambulance about R tag prices with no context.

I really don’t care what Montana does with respect to resident prices. Maybe you should spend more time hunting and fishing and less time trying to pick fights on the internet? Although it is cute when you get so sassy.

 

[WanderWoman]

This is true of all males, especially humans.

Except maybe Congress…?

"The availability of alternative prey did not appear in any of our top models suggesting that alternative food was not a driving factor in the patterns of predation on mule deer that we observed. This finding is inconsistent with previous research demonstrating that alternative prey can influence the rate of predation on neonate mule deer (Hamlin et al., 1984). However, Sacks and Neale (2002) demonstrated that small prey comprise only a minor portion of coyote diet when neonate sheep are present on the landscape."

Likewise, efforts should occur when populations have room to grow (size is below carrying capacity) to decrease the likelihood of compensatory mortality"

Hamlin et. al was a 20+ year study of mule deer in the Missouri River Breaks, and I think the relationship they found between mule deer, coyotes, and alternate prey there still exists today, in addition to the many other confounding variables influencing deer populations there.

The whole study is not controversial, or even interesting. The question really is the cost/benefit of implementing the conclusions below.

Our results underscore the need for coyote removal programs to (1) employ removal efforts over consecutive years to maximize effectiveness, (2) conduct spatially explicit removal efforts targeting fawning habitat, and (3) occur when the likelihood of additive mortality is high and prey populations have the resources available to grow.

I agree with this. In managing deer, we can throw money at predator control and do it every year and feel good about it because we see a pile of coyotes and “did something” for the deer. Or we can take that money and time and put it towards habitat improvement and advocating against all the things that hurt our habitat and mechanisms to manage it so the animals take care of themselves.

There are some situations where predator control is prudent. Good examples would be localized areas where the numbers are suppressed from things like drought or bad winters and they’re struggling to get over the hump, and predators are the main limiting factor. Another example would be killing lions prior to introducing naive sheep into an area.

The results these researchers claim aren’t much different from a whole host of other studies on mule deer and predation. Ballard et al (2001 I think) did a whole literature review and Hurley et al (2011) is another great example of a predator control study set up with an experimental design. I don’t remember either of their conclusions being much different than these.

 

[SAJ-99]

Ive got no idea how you could say that?

The majority of posters in this thread, including you, stated it makes no difference. The hypothesis drifted quite a bit - typical of HT.

I think there may be some nuance in my statement. It certainly can make a difference if you implement a large predator control program over a specific area or period. But that void will get refilled, so you have to do it every year. And then cost becomes an issue (I’m thinking of the study on duck nesting where predator control involved hiring trappers, but I think the same applies here). hunters randomly shooting a coyote while deer hunting is not impactful. I know a lot of ranchers drive around with a rifle in the cab “just in case”. Still plenty of coyotes.

Not sure why you are so bent out of shape about people commenting about MT prices. But that is not for this thread.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I agree with this. In managing deer, we can throw money at predator control and do it every year and feel good about it because we see a pile of coyotes and “did something” for the deer. Or we can take that money and time and put it towards habitat improvement and advocating against all the things that hurt our habitat and mechanisms to manage it so the animals take care of themselves.

I mean - are "we" throwing money at managing mule deer by usda sponsored flights/hunts? Or are those hunts to protect/subsidize an industry?

We are all paying for those - not to shoot the coyotes for the deer but for livestock. Whether thats effective use of funds for its intended purpose isnt particularily relevant to deer, to the people writing the checks anyway.

hunters randomly shooting a coyote while deer hunting is not impactful.

Sure - would it be somehow more impactful if they all sprayed some cheat grass spray when they were hunting?

You know that it will be full of cheatgrass next year with or without treatment this year. A product of moonfield grazing management when aggressive invasive grass germinates in the fall.