Efficacy of Predator Management

[ThunderJack49]

Great links, thanks for sharing.

This is the kind of $h*t that drives me nuts though - you see this kind of "clever thinking" on almost any issue that involves killing or punishing predators, whether terrorists or wolves:

“By killing some of the (coyotes), especially the larger males, it results in an increase in population as they become more inclined to reproduce,” said Kim Crumbo, conservation director for the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council. “It doesn’t really reduce the population long-term, so the whole thing is questionable,” he said.

It's literally an argument that your common sense is what the problem is.

I absolutely agree, I used to buy those same arguments at face value and found it interesting but I didn't challenge it.

The more time I spent in the woods, the less I could make it make sense.

I think many hunters by into the logic because it is easier for them to accept on a mental/emotional level.

I'll write to my fish and game department but I never expect it to matter much, and we can go around and around about what the snow water levels are or how many non-residents hunt or which units should be draw only but none of that requires very much effort from the hunter and certainly no responsibility.
My route to predator hunting came from wanting to worry less about what I can't control and focus on what I can control. I feel that there are others like me but predator hunting is still fringe in some respects.

This is why I wanted to hear anecdotes and stories from those who have done it.

 

[Coyote Commander]

Predator control works.

And its not done with a rifle.

Its year round, so its expensive. (Most places, seasonal removal is a tail chasing endeavor depending on program goals and how you want to define control). Its a lot of hard, dirty work in crap conditions. The fun goes out the window real quick many days. Not to mention the mental aspect of it. I.e. you need the right person doing it.



And when it comes to coyotes, one could argue the hunters, whether its in the name of "control" or pure recreation, actually end up doing more harm than good (as it pertains to "control", again, depending on the definition of the word).

 

[Coyote Commander]

Our ancestors knew the importance of predator control. And I think we're starting to come full circle.

The skunks and fox ate their chickens, the coyotes ate their sheep, the wolves ate their calves, the lions ate their horses, and the bears just general wrecked stuff.

This save the predator mentality of the last 40ish years I think is beginning to come to a close.

 

[go_deep]

Predator control works, with traps and hounds, period.

I can give you numerous accounts of places we're turkeys were void, and traps would be full daily of raccoons and skunks, trees full of raccoons when running them with hounds. 2 years of solid management of raccoons and skunks, turkeys and partridge returned to the property. One area in particular no wintering deer on a property, first year 13 female coyotes were trapped along with a couple males, since then a handful of coyotes are trapped each year, and deer are back wintering there ever winter.

 

[mt terry d]

Half measures = half results.
Poison works.
Helluva lot cheaper than paying for planes and snipers.

 

[Team4LongGun]

This won't answer your question but a couple of comments should be included/added:

• Predators are compensatory; one hunter on a property will not be able to deliver results in most situations. Predators simply backfill losses [and do that efficiently - i.e. renewable resource].
• Predator management is a full time effort and one that most hunters cannot sustain. It is a long and constant game to make any recognizable gains [think back to the days of money trapping for valuable furs, poisoning, and bounties - none exist due to devaluation, unpopularity or politics].
• Our state has documented beneficial herd improvement - but it took a sustained government effort over a few years and during calving/fawning to do it and document it [cougars in this instance]. Problem is, it needed funding and support. Funding runs out and support was limited to special interest cattlemen/ranchers/hunters which are all unpopular in today's society; the general public needs to support it and that doesn't happen in the west any longer.

I suspect as a hunter - or even hunters - the best we can do is hunt during the fawning/calving/nesting periods to impact survival of newborn.

You didn't mention what state. Are your bullet points opinion, or from a study you didn't list?

I generally disagree. There is not a conveyor belt of predators waiting to take spots. Killing does have an impact. It is just hard to gauge or measure. I have noticed a large change over the years from predator hunting where I live and hunt and the prey animals thrive when predators are reduced.

 

[JeffP_Or]

You didn't mention what state. Are your bullet points opinion, or from a study you didn't list?

I generally disagree. There is not a conveyor belt of predators waiting to take spots. Killing does have an impact. It is just hard to gauge or measure. I have noticed a large change over the years from predator hunting where I live and hunt and the prey animals thrive when predators are reduced.

Oregon.

First point seems to be accepted fact with plenty of science/study behind it - Robert(?) Weigus is the name that gets tossed out there most in our public hearings against cougar contests and wolf management/hunting.

The second is mostly anecdotal - read the above posts and listen to what most others experience; we must keep it up and be continual with it or the rewards will not last. Even your statement alludes to this. I think we agree - just maybe differing levels? As non-professional hunters, our efforts are generally half-assed at best especially when laws are enacted that further erode our efficiency to kill - cougar/bear hunting with hounds and/or bait for example. Or limited tag numbers. Most hunters simply do not want to or cannot commit to the time it takes to be that effective in the field - and therefore there is a small number who try [as noted in posts above]; so that efficiency or effectiveness is further eroded.

The third, ODFW includes the INFO [I believe this is basically the same findings] in their cougar management and mule deer management documents that I have seen. They studied some of their efforts to increase deer/elk survival in Oregon hunting units; mostly in the early 2000's [?]. They basically picked 6 underperforming units [two paris of three as I recall] and went in and reduced cougar populations [estimated] by 50% [again estimated, since ODFW has no clue how many actual cougars (or wolves) are running around]. There were immediate gains. They know it. We know it. It's published. But that cannot be sustained/funded at the level they had to do it and the general Oregon public fights it. However, without it being continual and sustained, they could not get the population back up to recoverable levels - NOT solely because predator management didn't work [it does] but because it could not be sustained and that, in combination with the other issues Oregon [and the west in general] has put the state where it is.

Don't get me wrong, I believe we agree, it does help. And as you note, it can be difficult to see the benefit. Just for the overall benefit - for Oregon at least - it will take way more effort than we get from my experience.

 

[Chrisamx]

At one time, when there were many ranches in the SFV and greater Los Angeles area, coyotes were almost wiped out. Once those farms and ranches left, the coyotes multiplied exponentially. Farmers and Ranchers were able to keep their numbers down for decades. They used various methods, poison and trapping works.

 

[RockAndSage]

Anyone arguing the sustained, systematic suppression of predator populations actually increases predator populations is prima facie manipulating you. Water is wet, fire is hot, they're manipulating.

I suspect very strongly that in looking deeper into any "science" supporting this BS about killing predators "actually" not working would reveal poor research design, insufficient size or time, using garbage-in "data" for modeling, or are inappropriately extrapolating, arguing that apples are actually oranges.

Systemically killing predators helps game populations.

 

[Coyote Commander]

So this whole notion that "killing more coyotes yields more coyotes" thing came about from several different studies. In every case the researchers made some pretty big assumptions, and, I dont think really understood coyotes, or coyote social structure.

The one I remember most was done in one of the Carolinas on a wildlife management/production, type area.

The gist of it was, removing coyotes resulted in higher fecundity. Thus, all the mouth breathers now say if you kill coyotes they just respond by having bigger litters.

The problems with this study......

The "control" area was quite small, and "control" was only done at a seasonal level (winter time "fur season" removal). This of course provided plenty of time for source to sink migration to occur.

The second issue, by their own admission they estimate they only removed 30% of the coyotes from the "control" area. In only the loosest sense of the word can one consider 30% removal "control". Especially when we consider coyotes reproduce via litters so 30% likely isnt even keeping up with local production.

Now the third issue, and the most important one.

Unless its a year round, "scorched earth" type removal campaign where pressure is constant, seasonal harvest largely only removes YOY. Very very few yearling females breed. And when they do, they typically have very small litters. Two year old coyotes make up the bulk of first time parents, and your 3-6 year old coyotes, those are your "running age" animals. They've been successful, they know what they're doing, and they typically have the large litters.

Whats better?

10 pairs of a cross section of ages with an average litter size of 5-6, or two older pairs with an average litter size of 7-10?

Fertility seems really high on that second example, but we still have a LOT less coyotes on the landscape.

Food availability will always dictate reproductive potential.

 

[RockAndSage]

seasonal harvest largely only removes YOY.

Great stuff - any similar info or insights you can provide (especially published critiques of these crap studies) would be much appreciated.

Also, YOY?

 

[Alder_]

YOY - young of the year

 

[Team4LongGun]

Oregon.

First point seems to be accepted fact with plenty of science/study behind it - Robert(?) Weigus is the name that gets tossed out there most in our public hearings against cougar contests and wolf management/hunting.

The second is mostly anecdotal - read the above posts and listen to what most others experience; we must keep it up and be continual with it or the rewards will not last. Even your statement alludes to this. I think we agree - just maybe differing levels? As non-professional hunters, our efforts are generally half-assed at best especially when laws are enacted that further erode our efficiency to kill - cougar/bear hunting with hounds and/or bait for example. Or limited tag numbers. Most hunters simply do not want to or cannot commit to the time it takes to be that effective in the field - and therefore there is a small number who try [as noted in posts above]; so that efficiency or effectiveness is further eroded.

The third, ODFW includes the INFO [I believe this is basically the same findings] in their cougar management and mule deer management documents that I have seen. They studied some of their efforts to increase deer/elk survival in Oregon hunting units; mostly in the early 2000's [?]. They basically picked 6 underperforming units [two paris of three as I recall] and went in and reduced cougar populations [estimated] by 50% [again estimated, since ODFW has no clue how many actual cougars (or wolves) are running around]. There were immediate gains. They know it. We know it. It's published. But that cannot be sustained/funded at the level they had to do it and the general Oregon public fights it. However, without it being continual and sustained, they could not get the population back up to recoverable levels - NOT solely because predator management didn't work [it does] but because it could not be sustained and that, in combination with the other issues Oregon [and the west in general] has put the state where it is.

Don't get me wrong, I believe we agree, it does help. And as you note, it can be difficult to see the benefit. Just for the overall benefit - for Oregon at least - it will take way more effort than we get from my experience.

Good stuff. And make no mistake, I wasn't pulling the rokslide "show me proof or your immediately invalidated" crap. I was just curious if it had been studied, or these were your observations.

An unbiased opinion, perspective and or experience is a data point just the same.

 

[mt terry d]

There were immediate gains. They know it. We know it. It's published. But that cannot be sustained/funded at the level they had to do it and the general Oregon public fights it.

If the F&G departments want to bow to the general non-hunting public then
the hunting public, which pays their salaries, need to push to eliminate all
research/biology/science positions within the F&G as there's absolutely no
need to waste hunters' $$ on acquired data (which is often worthless).

Scientific studies can be done by private groups privately funded such as Mule
Deer Foundation, RMEF, DU, Pheasants Forever.......

And let hunters' $$ fund bounties, poisons, trapping, whatever is determined to be effective.
The non-hunting public should not fund it. The closest they get to game is when it's in
their yard or they hit it on the hiway.
If there's not enough $$$ then F&G needs to downsize or take pay cuts, whatever is
necessary

You can then bet the higher ups in the F&G departments will start singing a different tune.
As it is, if the F&G departments (in many states) were non-governmental they
would have all been fired long ago for poor performance. They are much more political
than anything else.

 

[Tmac]

Oregon.

First point seems to be accepted fact with plenty of science/study behind it - Robert(?) Weigus is the name that gets tossed out there most in our public hearings against cougar contests and wolf management/hunting.

The second is mostly anecdotal - read the above posts and listen to what most others experience; we must keep it up and be continual with it or the rewards will not last. Even your statement alludes to this. I think we agree - just maybe differing levels? As non-professional hunters, our efforts are generally half-assed at best especially when laws are enacted that further erode our efficiency to kill - cougar/bear hunting with hounds and/or bait for example. Or limited tag numbers. Most hunters simply do not want to or cannot commit to the time it takes to be that effective in the field - and therefore there is a small number who try [as noted in posts above]; so that efficiency or effectiveness is further eroded.

The third, ODFW includes the INFO [I believe this is basically the same findings] in their cougar management and mule deer management documents that I have seen. They studied some of their efforts to increase deer/elk survival in Oregon hunting units; mostly in the early 2000's [?]. They basically picked 6 underperforming units [two paris of three as I recall] and went in and reduced cougar populations [estimated] by 50% [again estimated, since ODFW has no clue how many actual cougars (or wolves) are running around]. There were immediate gains. They know it. We know it. It's published. But that cannot be sustained/funded at the level they had to do it and the general Oregon public fights it. However, without it being continual and sustained, they could not get the population back up to recoverable levels - NOT solely because predator management didn't work [it does] but because it could not be sustained and that, in combination with the other issues Oregon [and the west in general] has put the state where it is.

Don't get me wrong, I believe we agree, it does help. And as you note, it can be difficult to see the benefit. Just for the overall benefit - for Oregon at least - it will take way more effort than we get from my experience.

I remember the ODFW cougar abatement for MD days. It did make a noticeable difference while cougar were removed. Made a big difference at that time for a particular herd I follow near the OR/Cal/NV border, it got picked for the first 5 years of the study and was renewed for another 5 as I recall. Those days are mostly behind us now, sadly.

 

[Buglebrush]

I've seen some drainages in Idaho bounce back impressively after seeing extensive Wolf Trapping over a period of years. We hunters all need to take predator removal serious! The most remote areas of regions in ldaho have seen far greater ungulate decline than areas near people, and I think it's primarily because predators have so much more pressure in the areas near people.