T
tjones
Guest
Is someone doing mouse surveys? Not looking to argue, just wondering where you got the info.
MT Mule Deer Symposium
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Is someone doing mouse surveys? Not looking to argue, just wondering where you got the info.
I agree.
And on this issue, the biology says that coyote control has little impact on mule deer pronghorn. Especially when you factor in the cost.
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
Miller.........great point actually. The conversation did go a little more in-depth than that though, so no, I don't think he was trying to justify his job. Really does surprise me though that people don't really see coyotes as a having a huge impact on fawn numbers.
Not trying to fight, but if you find some biologist that scientifically came out against ANY predators in Montana, I want to read that report/study.
How many years has it been that there is no scientific evidence that wolves have had any effects on Montana elk herds. I attended and sat in way too many meetings, and read way too many reports on wolves from the time they were doing studies to introduce the wolves to the years following. Biologists studies come out with many wishy washy variables and nothing substantial - drought, bad winters, lack of normal forage, etc. etc.
Now tell me or show me any studies that black bears, grizzlies, or mountain lions have any major effects on game herds from a scientific study in Montana. These damn creatures have been studied more than a new playboy magazine in a locker room and what have we got for results. NO SCIENCE. So, using your repeated comment of "Show me the science" has absolutely no credibilty with me. Why - because it don't exist. I for one have a liitle different attitude on bears, cats and wolves then the science shows.
I believe it was Miller that made a comment that went something like - So you asked a guy if his job was valid, and you got what? I'll give you my opinion "NO SCIENCE".
I am not a wolf, bear, cat, and/or coyote hater but with all the variables thrown at our wildlife herds here in Montana, along with all the bills the nuts up in Helana are throwing at the equation - it is time to start balancing our wildlife herds with predators high on the scale, not put on the bottom of the scale because someone can't "Show me the science".
Oh yea - I forgot - cats ain't a predator in the eyes of our Montana system.
Actually the science does exist, and it repeatedly shows that coyotes do not impact mule deer populations. There are always site specific anomolies, but the general rule is that if your better off managing habitat than trying to dig a hole in the ocean with coyote control.
Wolves and lions and bears are different: The study in the Bitterroot has shown that Lions are doing most of the predation when it comes to elk. Bears take themajority of elk calves.
But then we look at the Absoroka Elk Ecology project and we see that nutritional content of forage on public land is leading to poor body conditions for females which lead to less calves, and more vulnerable elk so that predation can rise.
The point is this: predation is a natural occurance and populations have evolved to deal with the ebb and flow of overall numbers. Humans want management to happen on a flat line with little to no increase or decrease - just a stable number so everything is somewhat predictable.
In order for that to happen, you end having to manage wildlife like livestock rather than wildlife, which has severe impacts to habitat (Northern Elk Herd over 20,000 screwed habitat severely).
The science is clear that predation can have a limiting factor on ungulate populations, but generally when the habitat is compromised. Again, focusing on predator control instead of habitat is not how you effectively manage over the long term for wildlife abundance.
Utah has proven that it doesn't work as well.
Well then - show me the report.
Lighten up Ben - we're all looking to better things but at times some have a more open mind than others.
If you want to read an interesting "scientific biologist report" on mountain lion in the breaks, read todays Billings Gazette. I admit that some editor wrote it but he sure as hell got his info from a biologist. Bottom line is - send a biologist out on a project and report back. They report back that they ran into this, this, and this. None of which is relevant BUT they came up with a dozen more studies that need to be done before any further questions can be brought up to study at a future date. That's what is known as creating your own job security - or in business we refer to it as pole vaulting over mouse chit and not getting anything done, "paralysis by analysis".
I'm not going to argue with you that it is economically feasible to try and wack every coyote out there - but you come across like no coyote would ever consider eating a fawn.
It's been said a gazillion times that if the big a-bomb would fall the only thing that would crawl out of the ruble would be a couple male and female coyotes - and that may not be too far fetched.
A little more coyote control sure as hell wouldn't hurt.
T
tjones
Guest
Bitterroot Elk Study update
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,853
Ben, I concur, coyotes are not economically feasable to control in most instances. Only when the price of fur hits that majic number than makes it work for the airplane/chopper crowd, or we get enough snow for the sledders to get after 'em(know one group winter of 10-11 that killed 2500 dogs).... I also concur that in SOME circumstances that coyotes will not have a detrimental effect on mule deer or antelope populations, in other words the prey speices are producing enough off-spring to negate predation....however, we are not in that scenario right now in Eastern(especially S.E. Mt) Montana right now....coyotes are putting a hurt on our fawn recruitment.
As to whoever asked about the mouse populations...we need snow cover for mice to flourish...NE Mt. is doing alright...SE Mt is not...after the winter of 10-11 we had more mice around than anyone had ever seen before...the snow cover protects them from predators...natures way of "making up"...snow melts...coyotes eat mice, leave ungulates alone .....
As to whoever asked about the mouse populations...we need snow cover for mice to flourish...NE Mt. is doing alright...SE Mt is not...after the winter of 10-11 we had more mice around than anyone had ever seen before...the snow cover protects them from predators...natures way of "making up"...snow melts...coyotes eat mice, leave ungulates alone .....
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I have to say that there are many theories on the effects that coyotes have on mule deer. While I found many that say there is little to no effect the studies done by the last one I posted seem to indicate more of an effect. Whoever these guy are that wrote the last one has many other studies on the subject. He collared 120 fawns and in the end 70% of the mortality was by coyote. Like I said many of the other ones dispute that rate. Heres a quote from one Idaho report done in 2007 "While coyotes prey heavily on mule deer fawns in southern Idaho, efforts to reduce coyote densities to improve fawn survival are largely ineffective."
Judging by this statement which I believe is true it makes both sides right. One cannot deny they have an impact nor can one deny that it is tough to do much about it. I realize you can find a study anywhere that says what you want it too.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/v...1-s#search="coyote predation mule deer study"
http://www.cfc.umt.edu/Heblab/PDFS/WM_Hurley et al. Mule Deer Predator Control 2011_small.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101775925717
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Ballard_et_al_2001a.pdf
Judging by this statement which I believe is true it makes both sides right. One cannot deny they have an impact nor can one deny that it is tough to do much about it. I realize you can find a study anywhere that says what you want it too.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/v...1-s#search="coyote predation mule deer study"
http://www.cfc.umt.edu/Heblab/PDFS/WM_Hurley et al. Mule Deer Predator Control 2011_small.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101775925717
http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Ballard_et_al_2001a.pdf
Big Shooter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 483
You show me some common sense! Oddly enough it is the ranchers and trappers that are out there every day that see these kinds of things vs. guys like you that just wait for the studies to be published and base your opinion on that. For Chists sakes...you have an area void of coyotes and you have high deer/antelope numbers OR..you have an area where you see more coyotes than deer/antelope fawns......?? I'll be damned......maybe the coyotes do have an affect. It surprises me that someone like you that claims to be so intelligent can't see this.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Show me an area "void" of coyotes in Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, etc....use some common sense.
I dont think anyone is denying that some fawns are killed by coyotes, bobcats, eagles, etc.
Big difference between that, and some ass-hat saying killing coyotes is the silver bullet to recovering deer and antelope populations.
What a joke.
I dont think anyone is denying that some fawns are killed by coyotes, bobcats, eagles, etc.
Big difference between that, and some ass-hat saying killing coyotes is the silver bullet to recovering deer and antelope populations.
What a joke.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I was thinking the same thing.
Well then - show me the report.
Lighten up Ben - we're all looking to better things but at times some have a more open mind than others.
If you want to read an interesting "scientific biologist report" on mountain lion in the breaks, read todays Billings Gazette. I admit that some editor wrote it but he sure as hell got his info from a biologist. Bottom line is - send a biologist out on a project and report back. They report back that they ran into this, this, and this. None of which is relevant BUT they came up with a dozen more studies that need to be done before any further questions can be brought up to study at a future date. That's what is known as creating your own job security - or in business we refer to it as pole vaulting over mouse chit and not getting anything done, "paralysis by analysis".
I'm not going to argue with you that it is economically feasible to try and wack every coyote out there - but you come across like no coyote would ever consider eating a fawn.
It's been said a gazillion times that if the big a-bomb would fall the only thing that would crawl out of the ruble would be a couple male and female coyotes - and that may not be too far fetched.
A little more coyote control sure as hell wouldn't hurt.
Cowboy, I'm light and breezy, just like Dink.
I certainly hope that my insistence that we focus on effective, biologically sound wildlife management is not taken in such a manner that folks believe my views are as you pointed out.
Coyotes eat things. It's what they do. It's why they were created. The reality is that people put their own ideas on wildlife, rather than trying to understand how those systems work. If coyotes are limiting fawn survival and herd recruitment, all I'm saying is that you're missing a bigger component. Excessive predation is a symptom of a broken habitat when it comes to yotes. It is also worth it to note that as ungulate numbers drop, coyote numbers drop as well. Behind the former, to be sure, but the drop. Then the ungulate numbers increase so long as the forage & nutritional content is there.
Big Shooter - 10 years of working on this both on the ground and behind a desk. Just because someone tells you something, doesn't mean it's true. Anecdotal evidence and field observations by folks who look at only one part of the issue both have their value, but they are in no way a system in which base your wildlife management schemes on.
Elk on public ground suffer from malnutrition due to poor forage quality.
Lower body condition leads to less pregnancies
Fewer pregnancies means fewer elk
Poor body condition leads to "weak" animals = easier pickings for woofs
elk that select crops = better body condition, higher pregnancy rates, better suited to avoiding woofs & Bars.
El Jason
Well-known member
I've had a hard time avoiding bars, particularly when I was younger. Lucky for me, it wasn't fatal
Sorry I wasn't more clear. Did they provide the causes for the decrease in nutrition in the forage? Change to a lower quality species? Same species, but they are less nutritious than in the past?
As an aside, many of the "natives" being sold for re-veg and conservation work are actually cultivars of the truly native species. Some are worried about genetic change or dilution of the true natives.
PS- I apology to the board as I'm a bit of a plant nerd...
sweetnectar
New member
Is this general statement because:
More public ground is on mountains or rocky ridges and lacking in bottom ground where forages grow better and carrying capacities are higher?
Or are public lands being taken care of as well as private lands?
Is less farming is done on public lands?
Are winters harder on public lands?
Perhaps some of all this and then some. Biology is no easy task.
I've hunted with Lawboy in some public areas were I'm scratching my head and asking what in the world are the elk eating, tree bark? It helps me understand when I'm on ground where I'm wading through good grass and I count 60 cow elk with 55 calves and how this could be vs. some of the stats I hear from the more public land rich areas.
