Efficacy of Predator Management

[omicron1792]

I think there is some truth to this but it’s all highly dependent on where you are.
There are plenty of studies as well as anecdotal evidence that shows how predators affect prey populations.
You can say something like “bears mostly eat grass/berries” and that would be true but it doesn’t discredit the fact that a bear in a calving ground eating 20 calves in a week is not having a dramatic effect on the population in that area, which is how statements like that are often presented.
“It’s not doing what you think it’s doing” is the purpose of this thread, for people to share their anecdotal experiences with Predator management of all types.
“They just come back” is the logical equivalent of saying that cutting the grass is not effective because the grass grows back. The goal here isn’t to vilify predators but rather for people to share their experiences that often contradict some of the more famous and dubiously funded studies, some that I think you are basing your conclusions from.

Great post and alMost my thoughts exactly.

The answer isn’t to let a predator without any natural predators for it to go unchecked.

 

[Superx3]

Timing and persistence is everything. If you kill 10 coyotes before or during calving/fawning season, that’s 10 less that are eating any kind of prey. Yes they will be replaced, but that takes time. Calving season will be over. Coyote numbers also plays a key role in preying on calves or fawns. If you mainly see single coyotes they are usually not much of a problem. On the other hand, if you have a pack of 3 or more running together they are much more likely to kill fawns/calves or even adults. Just like anything there is strength in numbers. This is not rocket science, the few predators there are, the fewer prey animals will be eaten. I’m not saying you have to completely wipe them out, but killing predators before and during the calving season WILL save calves.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The whole “they will just have more pups” argument is a bit absurd. Predator populations expand to carrying capacity. There’s no internal regulator for “have more pups or have less pups.” There’s just “did mom get enough calories to go into estrus, bring the pups to term, and keep them alive after birth.” If there’s not enough prey for mom to eat, the pups won’t be born or won’t make it.

Killing predators is always going to be good for the prey population. There’s no situation where more predators is good for overall numbers of prey species. The prey species will also expand until it meets carrying capacity for its environment. Adding predators may keep a few prey animals from dying of lack of food in the winter, but that is just putting a different source for the limit on the prey population.

The points I find interesting in the thread are the coyote population’s possible effect on other predators and nest raiders like raccoons, etc. It seems to be that removing those smaller predators might be very efficacious for helping turkeys and other birds, while also removing potential food for the coyotes.

But my understanding - gained from my ecologist ex-girlfriend - is that better habitat, particularly native plant species and their associated native insects, is more important for bird populations than most people think. We tend to think in terms of “what fruit or seeds does this plant produce for the birds to eat?” Her books say that the insects that eat those plants are critically important for the birds when they are nesting in late spring or early summer or for young birds growing. And, whether it makes sense or not, a lot of birds are specialist predators, not generalists. Just as a lot of insects specialize in a particular plant and are often dependent upon it (like those horrible spotted lantern flies and the equally horrid Tree of Heaven). But this is something I rarely see mentioned when people talk about planting food plots or other landscape development.

And the timing of killing seems pretty interesting to me too. Killing an adult coyote in the late winter or early spring probably makes more difference on controlling numbers than it would in the late summer or fall.

 

[omicron1792]

The whole “they will just have more pups” argument is a bit absurd. Predator populations expand to carrying capacity. There’s no internal regulator for “have more pups or have less pups.” There’s just “did mom get enough calories to go into estrus, bring the pups to term, and keep them alive after birth.” If there’s not enough prey for mom to eat, the pups won’t be born or won’t make it.

Killing predators is always going to be good for the prey population. There’s no situation where more predators is good for overall numbers of prey species. The prey species will also expand until it meets carrying capacity for its environment. Adding predators may keep a few prey animals from dying of lack of food in the winter, but that is just putting a different source for the limit on the prey population.

The points I find interesting in the thread are the coyote population’s possible effect on other predators and nest raiders like raccoons, etc. It seems to be that removing those smaller predators might be very efficacious for helping turkeys and other birds, while also removing potential food for the coyotes.

But my understanding - gained from my ecologist ex-girlfriend - is that better habitat, particularly native plant species and their associated native insects, is more important for bird populations than most people think. We tend to think in terms of “what fruit or seeds does this plant produce for the birds to eat?” Her books say that the insects that eat those plants are critically important for the birds when they are nesting in late spring or early summer or for young birds growing. And, whether it makes sense or not, a lot of birds are specialist predators, not generalists. Just as a lot of insects specialize in a particular plant and are often dependent upon it (like those horrible spotted lantern flies and the equally horrid Tree of Heaven). But this is something I rarely see mentioned when people talk about planting food plots or other landscape development.

And the timing of killing seems pretty interesting to me too. Killing an adult coyote in the late winter or early spring probably makes more difference on controlling numbers than it would in the late summer or fall.

I’ve had multiple wildlife biologists to my farm developing plans for wildlife. Every one puts habitat at the top of the list for improving deer, turkey, and quail. Predator control is on the list but well behind habitat.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I’ve had multiple wildlife biologists to my farm developing plans for wildlife. Every one puts habitat at the top of the list for improving deer, turkey, and quail. Predator control is on the list but well behind habitat.

Agreed. It seems like you have consulted with proper experts.

My point about the food sources - especially for birds - is that most of the people I know who are into developing habitat seem to focus on providing extra food in fall or winter. A grain plot is all well and good, but if the poults or chicks needed bugs in June, it’s of limited value.

A lot of the hunters I have met basically don’t think of the animals outside of hunting season. They want food sources that attract the animals to their hunting spot during hunting season. Or they want to provide extra food in winter to keep more adults alive (which is probably good if your goal is growing big trophy deer).

It’s just something I have been looking into a lot since I started wondering why the quail, grouse, and turkey numbers are way down on the farm (quail are non-existent these days). And that’s lead me to developing some long term plans to address habitat issues specifically for those birds. I don’t plan on ever hunting quail, but I would love to see and hear them. And maybe my grandkids can…

 

[omicron1792]

Agreed. It seems like you have consulted with proper experts.

My point about the food sources - especially for birds - is that most of the people I know who are into developing habitat seem to focus on providing extra food in fall or winter. A grain plot is all well and good, but if the poults or chicks needed bugs in June, it’s of limited value.

A lot of the hunters I have met basically don’t think of the animals outside of hunting season. They want food sources that attract the animals to their hunting spot during hunting season. Or they want to provide extra food in winter to keep more adults alive (which is probably good if your goal is growing big trophy deer).

It’s just something I have been looking into a lot since I started wondering why the quail, grouse, and turkey numbers are way down on the farm (quail are non-existent these days). And that’s lead me to developing some long term plans to address habitat issues specifically for those birds. I don’t plan on ever hunting quail, but I would love to see and hear them. And maybe my grandkids can…

Yeah. Food plots play a role, but behind overall habitat. I do yearly burns and TSI, which is of more importance.

 

[RockAndSage]

The whole “they will just have more pups” argument is a bit absurd.

This is also the kind of thing you see with politicized "science" - arguments that killing coyotes actually just makes them breed even more coyotes, or that killing terrorists just makes more terrorists. It's the same kind of sophomoric attempt at being clever and understanding that leads to paralysis by those unwilling to employ basic reasoning. You might get some females having more pups, or a dead terrorist's brother becoming a terrorist in response, but on the whole, the math is in favor of those willing to exchange bullets for biologic timelines.

Your points about the seeds, insects, and smaller segments of the food-web and ecology are really great, btw. It works all the way down to the soil, too - forests that get clear-cut have their fungal/mycological systems hammered pretty hard, and don't grow back as quickly or robustly as a system. When replanting is done with mycological treatments mixed in, all the things thrive better, from microbes to trees, insects, birds, etc.

 

[Coyote Commander]

Man I really hate the "if you kill coyotes you end up with even more coyotes" BS!!!

If thats the case we should be having HUGE litters here. Guess what, we dont, and we havent since we clobbered coyote numbers back in the control areas 4-5 years ago (and keep them more or less suppressed). Fecundity is and always will be a function of resource availability and individual animal age and health!

It was a THEORY, a theory based on very assumptive "research" (I use the term loosely).



As for coyotes effect on "nest predator" numbers, I think this number is exaggerated. Coyotes will be extremely hard on red fox, but I think the rest is very dependent on habitat type. You get into more "eastern" habitat types with lots of timber and heavier cover types, I think the level of predation you see isnt near as high as some would have you believe. Coon are a good example. Where I grew up, a lot of coon "denned" in cattails buried in the snow as that was the only cover in a lot of areas. I think the coyotes were pretty hard on those coon over the winter. But eastern or southern coon is going to be a different situation.

If I was interested in protecting birds, id be adopting a practice of removing ALL predators, from coyotes to possum.

Its important to note too, not all nest predators are equal. Possum and skunks may take a lot of nests, but they dont kill the hen. A coyote however is much more likely to kill the hen, thus eliminating any re-nest attempt.



Habitat vs. predator control.

Why not have both?

Habitat of course is important. But just think what can be accomplished with excellent habitat AND effective predator management?

We've been in this sort of "save the predator" era now for a good 20ish years now. All you hear is habitat habitat habitat, they're not wrong.

100 years ago we killed predators, all of them. I'm not saying we need to (or even could) get back to that, but that's the way it was. The fox killed their chickens, the coyotes killed their lambs, the wolves killed their calves, the cats mauled their horses, and the bears were just an all-around nuisance, so they killed them.

And than we had an era of sort of the birth of modern wildlife biology there in 1950s-90s where the game managers of the day didn't have to worry about predators, because they were all dead. So they beat the habitat drum, they weren't wrong.

Those biologists trained the biologists of today. Those biologists wrote the books of today.

The thing is, predators are back on the landscape. Yet it seems they still only want to beat the habitat drum. But I do think that's starting to change.

 

[ThunderJack49]

Man I really hate the "if you kill coyotes you end up with even more coyotes" BS!!!

If thats the case we should be having HUGE litters here. Guess what, we dont, and we havent since we clobbered coyote numbers back in the control areas 4-5 years ago (and keep them more or less suppressed). Fecundity is and always will be a function of resource availability and individual animal age and health!

It was a THEORY, a theory based on very assumptive "research" (I use the term loosely).



As for coyotes effect on "nest predator" numbers, I think this number is exaggerated. Coyotes will be extremely hard on red fox, but I think the rest is very dependent on habitat type. You get into more "eastern" habitat types with lots of timber and heavier cover types, I think the level of predation you see isnt near as high as some would have you believe. Coon are a good example. Where I grew up, a lot of coon "denned" in cattails buried in the snow as that was the only cover in a lot of areas. I think the coyotes were pretty hard on those coon over the winter. But eastern or southern coon is going to be a different situation.

If I was interested in protecting birds, id be adopting a practice of removing ALL predators, from coyotes to possum.

Its important to note too, not all nest predators are equal. Possum and skunks may take a lot of nests, but they dont kill the hen. A coyote however is much more likely to kill the hen, thus eliminating any re-nest attempt.



Habitat vs. predator control.

Why not have both?

Habitat of course is important. But just think what can be accomplished with excellent habitat AND effective predator management?

We've been in this sort of "save the predator" era now for a good 20ish years now. All you hear is habitat habitat habitat, they're not wrong.

100 years ago we killed predators, all of them. I'm not saying we need to (or even could) get back to that, but that's the way it was. The fox killed their chickens, the coyotes killed their lambs, the wolves killed their calves, the cats mauled their horses, and the bears were just an all-around nuisance, so they killed them.

And than we had an era of sort of the birth of modern wildlife biology there in 1950s-90s where the game managers of the day didn't have to worry about predators, because they were all dead. So they beat the habitat drum, they weren't wrong.

Those biologists trained the biologists of today. Those biologists wrote the books of today.

The thing is, predators are back on the landscape. Yet it seems they still only want to beat the habitat drum. But I do think that's starting to change.

These are great points.
I started this thread as a frustrated hunter who wants to help the prey populations in his area and came to the realization that predator hunting was the only option I really had.
I think some hunters lean on the habitat angle because it is comforting to think that if you hunt deer and elk in the fall and spend the winter going to pint nights for BHA then you really have done all you can do.

 

[omicron1792]

These are great points.
I started this thread as a frustrated hunter who wants to help the prey populations in his area and came to the realization that predator hunting was the only option I really had.
I think some hunters lean on the habitat angle because it is comforting to think that if you hunt deer and elk in the fall and spend the winter going to pint nights for BHA then you really have done all you can do.

I’ll push back a little.

On my farm I hunt predators HARD and improve habitat HARD.

The habitat work is way harder and more expensive. Many more pints are partaken around predator hunting than habitat work.

 

[ThunderJack49]

I’ll push back a little.

On my farm I hunt predators HARD and improve habitat HARD.

The habitat work is way harder and more expensive. Many more pints are partaken around predator hunting than habitat work.

Habitat work certainly looks a lot more like work than going hunting. I was referring to fundraisers that groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers put on that are mostly just ways to sell t-shirts and hats.

They and others sometimes do good work with the money, I'm not taking that away from them. The fundraiser/banquet thing is cool but I was making the point that a lot of guys go to one and that is all the care to do for the year. Paying 20$ for a beer and another 20$ for a hat is pretty low hanging fruit in my opinion, especially for people who make hunting their entire personality. Most people don't have their own habitat, and donating to these groups is about all they can do, I get that. But that is where I see the "habit over everything" argument used as an excuse to not dig any deeper into the issue.

If you are referring to guys sitting around and talking predator hunting while drinking a beer, I'm sure that happens a lot. I personally don't drink and my friends call it "slave juice" so I have a habit of making fun of those who do.

Sometimes when I'm out hunting I and it’s going slow, I'll pull a bunch of cheatgrass or other invasives and burn it in a small fire. Doing that, and other things, are an exercise in futility on the national forest though. I would like to make a difference in the habitat on public land around me, but really I don’t have many viable options. Which is what led me to starting this thread, looking for inspiration from others who have made a difference in the areas they hunt. Public land hunters just don’t have much control over habitat.

If I owned a large amount of land, I would certainly being doing both habitat and predator control. I do both on the land that I do own. I just wish the land management agencies around me would do both as well.

 

[omicron1792]

Habitat work certainly looks a lot more like work than going hunting. I was referring to fundraisers that groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers put on that are mostly just ways to sell t-shirts and hats.

They and others sometimes do good work with the money, I'm not taking that away from them. The fundraiser/banquet thing is cool but I was making the point that a lot of guys go to one and that is all the care to do for the year. Paying 20$ for a beer and another 20$ for a hat is pretty low hanging fruit in my opinion, especially for people who make hunting their entire personality. Most people don't have their own habitat, and donating to these groups is about all they can do, I get that. But that is where I see the "habit over everything" argument used as an excuse to not dig any deeper into the issue.

If you are referring to guys sitting around and talking predator hunting while drinking a beer, I'm sure that happens a lot. I personally don't drink and my friends call it "slave juice" so I have a habit of making fun of those who do.

Sometimes when I'm out hunting I and it’s going slow, I'll pull a bunch of cheatgrass or other invasives and burn it in a small fire. Doing that, and other things, are an exercise in futility on the national forest though. I would like to make a difference in the habitat on public land around me, but really I don’t have many viable options. Which is what led me to starting this thread, looking for inspiration from others who have made a difference in the areas they hunt. Public land hunters just don’t have much control over habitat.

If I owned a large amount of land, I would certainly being doing both habitat and predator control. I do both on the land that I do own. I just wish the land management agencies around me would do both as well.

I hear you. Makes sense.

I do think habitat work is important. Maybe the most important.

But I have personally seen lots of improvement when I started killing predators 4-5 years ago.

If you don’t have land you really can’t do habitat work, so all you got is predator control.

 

[BR549]

The, "they just have more pups" and "another will backfill for the one you took out" statements are laughable.

Ya, they might...
...but I'll get them too.

 

[rookieforever33]

A neighbor about 2 miles from me had a long streak of double digit coyote kills every winter for a good 5-8 year run. During that run I would see one on occasion and shoot one or two a year. Mostly by coincidence when out deer hunting, but sometimes off of my back porch. He stopped his coyote hunting about 2 years ago. I started seeing more within the next year, often in pairs, and have shot 6 in the last six months. Still either from the back porch or while deer hunting, never really as a goal. My nit so scientific mind tells me that his hunting helped keep the population smaller. I do not think you can or should eradicate coyotes. I also think they rebound pretty quick once you do relent on that hunting. But not hunting them will allow a much larger population to thrive.

 

[OsoMountain]

Nothing like laying some cold MB550 steel in the ground. It absolutely makes a huge impact on predator numbers. Long line, gang set, trap waterways and transition areas. Plus it is a great primer for spring bear season to get the legs in shape.

 

[Canis Latrans]

I've argued with people that it just can't be possible killing coyotes means there will be MORE coyotes around. It's like a perpetual motion machine, that's just not how things work. Not surprised to find out it was propaganda lying the whole time. Wouldn't be the first time seeing things doesn't line up with that he 'experts' claim is fact.

 

[Coyote Commander]

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

Also, YOY?

I could write a book on real observations and results on the subject of coyote control.

Coyotes are sort of my "lifes work", I find them absolutely fascinating.

I drive around the prairie most days with just a couple dogs who arent the worlds greatest conversationalists so I ponder this stuff alot. And some days ill admit, I even start to wonder if we're not just spinning our wheels (like right now, ive got some nasty sheep killers, some of the toughest ive ever seen, been loosing sleep over these ones and we just cant get on them). But, than I also get to see the net results being out there every single day doing this, and its generally positive.

One of the biggest problems I have with a lot of "studies" (and I spent ten years in research), is WHO did them.

Years ago we were trying to get floats for muskrat trapping legalized in ND. For those that dont know, its exactly as it sounds, a platform that floats on the water that you set traps on. G&F was concerned they would take to many ducks in the spring when the migration was happening. They had no up to date research at the time to support that fear and were basing most of it off a 1940s study done in Maine concerning wood ducks, so substantially difference habitat types.

(Its important to note that at this time, floats were perfectly legal in SD, with no real issue to ducks in a very similar habitat type).

Anyway, they hired a grad student to conduct this "study". The gist of it ended up being, he caught a pile of ducks, but he also didnt catch squat for muskrats. Anyone thats seriously trapped muskrats in the spring will tell you you should be running at LEAST a 50% catch rate, twice daily! This kids catch to "trap nights" was abysmal. Which tells me, he was doing something very wrong, which makes the entire study suspect.


I still read the studies, sometimes there's little nuggets of usefulness. And I do really believe we're turning a corner in the "save the predator", or the "predators dont matter" mentality of the last few decades.

 

[RockAndSage]

I could write a book on real observations and results on the subject of coyote control.

Coyotes are sort of my "lifes work", I find them absolutely fascinating.

I drive around the prairie most days with just a couple dogs who arent the worlds greatest conversationalists so I ponder this stuff alot. And some days ill admit, I even start to wonder if we're not just spinning our wheels (like right now, ive got some nasty sheep killers, some of the toughest ive ever seen, been loosing sleep over these ones and we just cant get on them). But, than I also get to see the net results being out there every single day doing this, and its generally positive.

One of the biggest problems I have with a lot of "studies" (and I spent ten years in research), is WHO did them.

Years ago we were trying to get floats for muskrat trapping legalized in ND. For those that dont know, its exactly as it sounds, a platform that floats on the water that you set traps on. G&F was concerned they would take to many ducks in the spring when the migration was happening. They had no up to date research at the time to support that fear and were basing most of it off a 1940s study done in Maine concerning wood ducks, so substantially difference habitat types.

(Its important to note that at this time, floats were perfectly legal in SD, with no real issue to ducks in a very similar habitat type).

Anyway, they hired a grad student to conduct this "study". The gist of it ended up being, he caught a pile of ducks, but he also didnt catch squat for muskrats. Anyone thats seriously trapped muskrats in the spring will tell you you should be running at LEAST a 50% catch rate, twice daily! This kids catch to "trap nights" was abysmal. Which tells me, he was doing something very wrong, which makes the entire study suspect.


I still read the studies, sometimes there's little nuggets of usefulness. And I do really believe we're turning a corner in the "save the predator", or the "predators dont matter" mentality of the last few decades.

This makes a lot of sense, appreciate your thoughts on it all. Between innocently and unknowingly lacking necessary competencies or having any kind of political biases, it can take a lot of crap "science" and give it the veneer of authority.

I've seen a couple of similar things. The most notable was in running into a couple of biologists in far NorCal on a trip with my dad when I was a kid, who were doing field studies near a remote campground we were at on spotted owl populations in the region. This was right as the spotted owl issue was being used to shut down logging. It was a casual conversation, but within it my dad asked how they were finding spotted owls and what kind of sign they were looking for. Their answer was literally, "We're not quite sure what to look for yet." Deep into the politicization of the issue, already impacting people's lives, that was the state of field research.

And the findings were that the spotted owl was "endangered" enough that logging restrictions were put in place that collapsed entire communities by shutting down lumber mills. Lives ruined by shoddy science, at best done by innocently incompetent field researchers. But definitely politicized into a weapon.