nys: coyote/coywolf contests

[adkman12986]

DEC also believes that there are only 33,000 coyotes in New York State, according to a biologist at a recent seminar on whitetail populations I attended.

[Gman]

Bounder,

I've actually had a hand in raising cattle and sheep. As well as chickens, geese, goats. I hunted coyotes with hounds, killed a few and been party of many others taken.

So I have to ask. Where do you get these cock and bull theories? Have you been Googling?

How do you graze cattle in the winter in country where snow covers the pasture for months?

Traditionally the average farmer had little to do in winter. That's one of the reason cows calve in winter here...so they had the time to watch them. You still have to feed your cattle well into April until the pasture starts to green. By late April your into planting season.

Anyway that is all a moot point because the adult cow is not in danger anyway, its the calf and nobody allows them to be birthed outside on the ground in winter other than a lazy man who shouldn't have cattle.

In 30 years we lost 1 sheep by coyote and that one was inadvertent. It jumped in the water tank out of fright one night and was dead in the morning from hypothermia. Never had a guard dog.

As far as learning by talking to people about it. Umm...that was my life. I may have moved into town now but I'm never far from it with family and friends.

ADK man,

No doubt there are lots of coyotes and they eat a lot of fawns. But the facts are there are more deer now than ever. In the Adirondacks the coyote density should be far less than outside the Park. Coyotes numbers are highest in open country and urban areas.

[Gman]

Originally Posted by adkman12986

DEC also believes that there are only 33,000 coyotes in New York State, according to a biologist at a recent seminar on whitetail populations I attended.

I've seen the number at 38,000. It's an educated guess. Up here they estimate there are 4,000 living in Metro Toronto which is the same number I've seen listed in the Adirondacks.

[Bounder45]

Gman, I don't know where you live, but here NY, there are farmers who keep their livestock out in the fields during the winter for grazing; there are also some breeds that are hardier than others and can even pick through the snow to feed, so long as it isn't too deep.

It's very rare that these animals are ever in one centralized location where the farmer can keep constant tabs on them. And these men and women are almost always busy; some of them are running these operations with only 1 or 2 part-time hands.

The coyote is an important part of our ecosystem but can be a big problem for these rural farms and residents if their numbers are left unchecked. Your own experiences with coyote predation may be different from others', but their capabilities and damage potential as predators is almost universally acknowledged. Here is a little reading for you to consider:
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/new...6be1fc69b.html
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_he...hloss_2010.pdf
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_he...thLoss2015.pdf
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda...05-12-2011.pdf

For the US alone, 220k head of cattle were lost due to predators in 2010; the #1 cause, by a wide margin, was coyote predation. I'm not interested in comparing each other's notes on farming knowledge, but it's more than pointless for you to try and pretend that coyote predation isn't a relevant issue for a lot of farmers.

Culling is one means of keeping them in check. I've hunted coyotes with dogs. I've called for them as well (which is basically what the contests entail too, the only difference being that there are weigh-ins and prizes for certain rankings). Both methods epitomize fair chase and have very steep learning curves. The anti-hunting guru's, who seem to be especially vocal on this section of the forum, may not like coyote hunting but there is a practical context for why it is so popular in the rural areas. And more importantly, there is DEC management and supervision in place to ensure that they can be hunted for the long term without compromising their viability as a species.

[Bounder45]

Originally Posted by bioguide

He discusses the coyotes resiliency despite decades of private and government attempts to eradicate them and how these attempts may have actually aided them in their migration across america. While not exactly elaborating on the Eastern Coyote the book, IMO, does provide interesting discussion on the why we have coyote's in the Northeast.

I picked up his book "American Serengeti" recently. His name has been tossed around quite a bit both by hunters and historians as being one of the pioneers of environmental history (in terms of how it exists today). I've heard him talk one or twice on a podcast; he's an interesting guy and his work seems to dispel a few of the popular misconceptions that exist about American wildlife and environmental history.

[producer]

Originally Posted by Bounder45

Gman, I don't know where you live, but here NY, there are farmers who keep their livestock out in the fields during the winter for grazing; there are also some breeds that are hardier than others and can even pick through the snow to feed, so long as it isn't too deep.

It's very rare that these animals are ever in one centralized location where the farmer can keep constant tabs on them. And these men and women are almost always busy; some of them are running these operations with only 1 or 2 part-time hands.

The coyote is an important part of our ecosystem but can be a big problem for these rural farms and residents if their numbers are left unchecked. Your own experiences with coyote predation may be different from others', but their capabilities and damage potential as predators is almost universally acknowledged. Here is a little reading for you to consider:
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/new...6be1fc69b.html
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_he...hloss_2010.pdf
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_he...thLoss2015.pdf
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda...05-12-2011.pdf

For the US alone, 220k head of cattle were lost due to predators in 2010; the #1 cause, by a wide margin, was coyote predation. I'm not interested in comparing each other's notes on farming knowledge, but it's more than pointless for you to try and pretend that coyote predation isn't a relevant issue for a lot of farmers.

Culling is one means of keeping them in check. I've hunted coyotes with dogs. I've called for them as well (which is basically what the contests entail too, the only difference being that there are weigh-ins and prizes for certain rankings). Both methods epitomize fair chase and have very steep learning curves. The anti-hunting guru's, who seem to be especially vocal on this section of the forum, may not like coyote hunting but there is a practical context for why it is so popular in the rural areas. And more importantly, there is DEC management and supervision in place to ensure that they can be hunted for the long term without compromising their viability as a species.

Im not so sure your data links prove that predators need to be so heavily focused on. We are talking about 1 percent of the population of livestock being affected by coyotes. Non-predator causes of death are far more relevant, and much less pointless.

Easy for me to say, since its not my livelihood being affected. If saving just one head of cattle by shooting a coyote helps put food on the table for a rancher, I can see why they would want to prevent it from happening. But the data also shows they could be doing more non-violent prevention. And it certainly shows they could do more to prevent disease and other causes of death. I'm not saying they don't do it already. And Im not anti-hunter. I recognize that its useful for wildlife management to some extent, and as a source of income and food for others. I am pro-common sense though. Sure, on the surface, saying that half of the 220,000 animals taken by predators per year are taken by coyotes sounds really bad. Its a big number. But comparative to the whole population, its much ado about nothing. Even compared to other causes of death, its small potatoes.

Coyotes and predators are easy to scapegoat, and much easier to target, literally, than disease. And fear mongering makes it easy to get others to support that prevention method. But its just like other things in the united states that doesnt jive with factual data. Alcohol is 114 times more likely to kill you than marijuana, but which one is illegal according to the federal government? Or how about more innocent American children are killed accidentally by guns every year than Americans killed by terrorists... yet we try to ban immigrants, but you can only take my gun from my cold dead hands. There's obviously a lot of layers to both of those off topic arguments, but the same common sense following of the data applies, and should apply to hunting wildlife and protecting livestock. We don't want any Americans killed by terrorists, even just the 1 or 2 per year is too many... but we completely ignore the hundreds of children each year. Farmers, and consumers of beef products, don't want any cattle killed by coyotes, but there seems to be a disproportionate level of focus or worry on predators.

Sorry to add in the off topic political stuff.

[Bounder45]

Originally Posted by producer

Im not so sure your data links prove that predators need to be so heavily focused on. We are talking about 1 percent of the population of livestock being affected by coyotes. Non-predator causes of death are far more relevant, and much less pointless.

Easy for me to say, since its not my livelihood being affected. If saving just one head of cattle by shooting a coyote helps put food on the table for a rancher, I can see why they would want to prevent it from happening. But the data also shows they could be doing more non-violent prevention. And it certainly shows they could do more to prevent disease and other causes of death. I'm not saying they don't do it already. And Im not anti-hunter. I recognize that its useful for wildlife management to some extent, and as a source of income and food for others. I am pro-common sense though. Sure, on the surface, saying that half of the 220,000 animals taken by predators per year are taken by coyotes sounds really bad. Its a big number. But comparative to the whole population, its much ado about nothing. Even compared to other causes of death, its small potatoes.

I'm sure there are agricultural journals discussing this topic in greater detail, but I'd imagine if farmers/ranchers could buy some miracle medicine that could take care of any and all disease, they would have done so by now for purely economical reasons. Good farm management aside, livestock disease seems to be an inevitable reality that most farmers have to deal with at some point or another, and that risk will vary depending on the breed of livestock, numbers, geographic location, ect.

Livestock predation is something that farmers have a bit more control over; and there are a variety of methods for dealing with it, hunting being only one of them. A lot of these farms/ranches make their profits by only very slim margins, so if it makes sense why they would want to tamp down on losses where they can. And just as importantly, but not necessarily illustrated by the predator loss numbers, is the issue of pressured or spooked livestock which are generally not as healthy or productive as unmolested livestock. The same applies, in some measure, for the farmers/ranchers themselves; when they're worrying over predator issues, they're less focused on the other work that needs to get done. I know those kind of intangible issues might be hard for some here to understand, but from the rancher's perspective these issues can cause a lot of hardship and stress (emotionally and financially).

I think fear-mongering is not really an issue for most people. Sure there are a few crazies who think that all predators should be driven into extinction. But to be fair, there are crazies on the other side who think it's feasible to use artificial sterilization to control certain animal populations. I think what divides people's opinions on wildlife issues, especially as it relates to predators, is where they live and what they experience on a daily basis. Someone herding sheep in eastern Washington or monitoring elk numbers in the Yellowstone ecosystem is going to have a very different perspective on predator management than say someone reading ADK magazine or watching a Nat Geo special from the comfort of their suburban home. That's why it's important for people to step outside themselves from time to time and try to analyze issues from other perspectives.

Originally Posted by producer

But its just like other things in the united states that doesnt jive with factual data. Alcohol is 114 times more likely to kill you than marijuana, but which one is illegal according to the federal government? Or how about more innocent American children are killed accidentally by guns every year than Americans killed by terrorists... yet we try to ban immigrants, but you can only take my gun from my cold dead hands. There's obviously a lot of layers to both of those off topic arguments, but the same common sense following of the data applies, and should apply to hunting wildlife and protecting livestock. We don't want any Americans killed by terrorists, even just the 1 or 2 per year is too many... but we completely ignore the hundreds of children each year. Farmers, and consumers of beef products, don't want any cattle killed by coyotes, but there seems to be a disproportionate level of focus or worry on predators.

Sorry to add in the off topic political stuff.

You're pretty confident there with what you claim are "facts." Some of these issues you're bringing up are very subjective and are hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.

[producer]

Originally Posted by Bounder45

I'm sure there are agricultural journals discussing this topic in greater detail, but I'd imagine if farmers/ranchers could buy some miracle medicine that could take care of any and all disease, they would have done so by now for purely economical reasons. Good farm management aside, livestock disease seems to be an inevitable reality that most farmers have to deal with at some point or another, and that risk will vary depending on the breed of livestock, numbers, geographic location, ect.

Livestock predation is something that farmers have a bit more control over; and there are a variety of methods for dealing with it, hunting being only one of them. A lot of these farms/ranches make their profits by only very slim margins, so if it makes sense why they would want to tamp down on losses where they can. And just as importantly, but not necessarily illustrated by the predator loss numbers, is the issue of pressured or spooked livestock which are generally not as healthy or productive as unmolested livestock. The same applies, in some measure, for the farmers/ranchers themselves; when they're worrying over predator issues, they're less focused on the other work that needs to get done. I know those kind of intangible issues might be hard for some here to understand, but from the rancher's perspective these issues can cause a lot of hardship and stress (emotionally and financially).

I think fear-mongering is not really an issue for most people. Sure there are a few crazies who think that all predators should be driven into extinction. But to be fair, there are crazies on the other side who think it's feasible to use artificial sterilization to control certain animal populations. I think what divides people's opinions on wildlife issues, especially as it relates to predators, is where they live and what they experience on a daily basis. Someone herding sheep in eastern Washington or monitoring elk numbers in the Yellowstone ecosystem is going to have a very different perspective on predator management than say someone reading ADK magazine or watching a Nat Geo special from the comfort of their suburban home. That's why it's important for people to step outside themselves from time to time and try to analyze issues from other perspectives.



You're pretty confident there with what you claim are "facts." Some of these issues you're bringing up are very subjective and are hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yea i dont necessarily disagree with too much that you said, in fact I point it out in my post, just not in so many words. The data you posted is definitely missing what farmers have done about disease... but if disease is a natural and inevitable result, so is predation. And we are still talking about small amounts in comparison to nonpredators and the population as a whole.

As far as the off topic stuff, i could post data, just not going there considering its so off topic. It just goes to show my point of following the data. And i do put in there that I recognize there are many layers to those issues. Cherry picking data can work both ways.

[Bounder45]

Originally Posted by producer

Yea i dont necessarily disagree with too much that you said, in fact I point it out in my post, just not in so many words. The data you posted is definitely missing what farmers have done about disease... but if disease is a natural and inevitable result, so is predation. And we are still talking about small amounts in comparison to nonpredators and the population as a whole.

Well like you said, this is a topic that has many layers to it. It also has extreme views on both ends of the spectrum. One end you have people who think that no predators should ever be killed, regardless of the reasoning behind it. And on the other end you have people who think that all predators should be wiped out. I truly believe that most people in this country fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

Numbers-wise, cattle predation is only a tiny fraction of overall deaths. But the post I was responding to was insinuating that predators hardly caused any problems for farmers and ranchers. 220k cattle for 2010 (I don't know what the stats were for this past year) is small relative to disease-related deaths, but is by no means insignificant in and of itself. Also keep in mind that 220k number was for cattle only. ~365k sheep were lost in 2015, with 36% of those losses due to predators. I'm not bringing any of this up to demonize predators. A wolf will be a wolf and same for a coyote. But it is pointless to try and pretend that predators don't have some measure of impact on farming/ranching operations.

Livestock aside, the predators have an impact on the ungulate populations, the degree to which is sometimes debated. Wolves in Yellowstone have without a doubt seriously impacted the local elk herds (their numbers dropped from 19k in the 90's to about 4.8k in 2015) and have threatened the small and fragile caribou population in the northwestern US. Cougar in the western states have had an impact on big-horned sheep, certain populations of which are also low in number. Coyote impacts on certain game like deer is still under discussion, with some saying that have little to no impact and others saying they prey heavily on fawn and, increasingly, adult deer (especially in areas where wolves and cougar are no longer present).

Like I said earlier, I don't subscribe to the mentality that coyote and other predators should be treated like vermin and hunted into extinction, and I think most hunters have a similar view. But they do influence other game populations, as well as livestock, and need to be managed appropriately.

[producer]

Originally Posted by Bounder45

Numbers-wise, cattle predation is only a tiny fraction of overall deaths. But the post I was responding to was insinuating that predators hardly caused any problems for farmers and ranchers. 220k cattle for 2010 (I don't know what the stats were for this past year) is small relative to disease-related deaths, but is by no means insignificant in and of itself. Also keep in mind that 220k number was for cattle only. ~365k sheep were lost in 2015, with 36% of those losses due to predators. I'm not bringing any of this up to demonize predators. A wolf will be a wolf and same for a coyote. But it is pointless to try and pretend that predators don't have some measure of impact on farming/ranching operations.

Livestock aside, the predators have an impact on the ungulate populations, the degree to which is sometimes debated. Wolves in Yellowstone have without a doubt seriously impacted the local elk herds (their numbers dropped from 19k in the 90's to about 4.8k in 2015) and have threatened the small and fragile caribou population in the northwestern US. Cougar in the western states have had an impact on big-horned sheep, certain populations of which are also low in number. Coyote impacts on certain game like deer is still under discussion, with some saying that have little to no impact and others saying they prey heavily on fawn and, increasingly, adult deer (especially in areas where wolves and cougar are no longer present

Some measure and significant are two different things. I would argue that 1% is insignificant. You clearly feel otherwise. And the numbers are similar for both sheep and cattle, so its also 1 percent of sheep. With approx 2.1 million cattle ranches in the us, thats less than 1/8 of farms affected. Like you said, wolf will be a wolf... they are supposed to kill ungulates. Of course like you are suggesting, we dont want them killing them off completely. Wildlife management is needed now, but it wasnt always that way.

[Hard Scrabble]

All interesting commentary.
But the fact remains that coyotes, coy dogs, whatever you name them are present in the AdK's.
They predate on fawns as well as mature deer.
Efforts in the western part of our country to limit their population failed.
Jim

[Bounder45]

Originally Posted by producer

Some measure and significant are two different things. I would argue that 1% is insignificant. You clearly feel otherwise. And the numbers are similar for both sheep and cattle, so its also 1 percent of sheep. With approx 2.1 million cattle ranches in the us, thats less than 1/8 of farms affected. Like you said, wolf will be a wolf... they are supposed to kill ungulates. Of course like you are suggesting, we dont want them killing them off completely. Wildlife management is needed now, but it wasnt always that way.

I'm not following your math there, especially your point on 1/8 of farms being affected. Predators accounted for 5% of all cattle losses for that 220k example, and accounted for 36% of all sheep losses for 2015 (which just seems to confirm that certain livestock are more vulnerable than others when it come to predators). I'm sure you could look up the stats for other types of livestock, but those numbers, especially for the sheep aren't insignificant. That and #'s only tell half the story...LGD's, fencing, range riders, fladry, trapping are just some of the measures that farmers/ranchers will use to deal with predator problems. All of these measures cost money and time to implement and maintain, which eats into their already thin profit margins. Not to mention the stress to both the livestock and farmers/ranchers themselves when incidents happen.

I'm sure most of these men and women knew the hardships involved when they took up this lifestyle. But this notion held by some posters here that you can just put out an LGD or two, build your fence and not have to worry about predator issues is just plain naive. None of these management strategies are foolproof, especially as the local predators become more educated. Hunting is one of many management tools available. And it was in use long before European settlers came to North America (arguably without the long-term planning and scientific understanding that we have today).

[geogymn]

This just in;

"Another study featured, “Cattle mortality on a predator friendly station in central Australia,” found that ending lethal control may in itself — even without implementing nonlethal methods — reduce livestock losses by simply enabling the predator’s social structure to stabilize.

Not only are aggressive lethal controls ineffective, they have actually been found to increase livestock losses..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b026a89a7a2b08

[geogymn]

I discourage the shooting of coyotes but I do believe hunting is an useful and necessary management tool.

[Hard Scrabble]

Originally Posted by geogymn

I discourage the shooting of coyotes but I do believe hunting is an useful and necessary management tool.

In one sentence, you discourage shooting coyotes, in the next, you encourage hunting.
Which is it???
Coyotes are here to stay, efforts for controlling their population have been nonproductive.
At one point, in NY State, there was a bounty paid.
Now they're protected as a fur bearing animal.
They're here to stay.
Jim

[geogymn]

Originally Posted by Hard Scrabble

In one sentence, you discourage shooting coyotes, in the next, you encourage hunting.
Which is it???
Coyotes are here to stay, efforts for controlling their population have been nonproductive.
At one point, in NY State, there was a bounty paid.
Now they're protected as a fur bearing animal.
They're here to stay.
Jim

What I am saying is I like coyotes and I like the idea of coyotes. I want coyotes in the woods that I roam. But I don't begrudge others for hunting them, it is not my call on how they feel about it.
I also think that hunting coyotes maintains man as a dominant species. Dominance induces fear. I know that we must cull the bold coyotes to ensure the survival of the species.
If a coyote becomes too bold around my children it has to go. Hypocritical, I know, but that is the way it is.

[Gman]

"But this notion held by some posters here that you can just put out an LGD or two, build your fence and not have to worry about predator issues is just plain naive."

I'm the naïve one? You're making a fool of yourself.

I have actually raised sheep for 30 years. What have you done? My in laws were huge cattle drovers and producers. None of us lost livestock to a coyote attack. My in laws had trouble with domestics dogs running cattle. All we did with sheep was provide a safe area during lambing (that's a fence BTW)

I did an online search of coyotes preying on livestock in New York State and found nothing. In fact SUNY Department of Environmental Science states free ranging domestic dogs are a far bigger problem.

Here's one from NY State you should read:

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/outdoo...iled_hawk.html

Hunting might be a "management tool" as you claim but it sure isn't a very effective one. More gobbledegook from those who feel a need to justify killing coyotes.

Here's the best management tool....Leave them alone!

[geogymn]

http://www.syracuse.com/outdoors/ind...art_river_home

[Bounder45]

Originally Posted by Gman

I have actually raised sheep for 30 years. What have you done? My in laws were huge cattle drovers and producers. None of us lost livestock to a coyote attack. My in laws had trouble with domestics dogs running cattle. All we did with sheep was provide a safe area during lambing (that's a fence BTW)

I did an online search of coyotes preying on livestock in New York State and found nothing. In fact SUNY Department of Environmental Science states free ranging domestic dogs are a far bigger problem.

Well I guess the coyotes outside of your neck of the woods didn't get the memo. They account for most of the predator losses for just about every type of livestock.

They are also relatively new to NY and the northeast in general. So I wouldn't expect their impact to be the same here as it is elsewhere. I've spent quite a bit of time hunting and hiking both in agricultural lands and forests; I've never run into a free-ranging domestic dog (at least one that was truly feral and capable of preying on livestock). I've run into coyote, or have seen their sign, almost everywhere. Based on population numbers alone, I highly doubt free-ranging dogs are causing a bigger problem than coyote for livestock and farmers. In fact, I highly doubt a free-ranging domestic dog will survive long in the wild as coyote are inclined to kill such dogs.

As Jim said, they're here to stay. Regulated hunting and trapping isn't going to change that.

[Gman]

Hey not my claim. I'm quoting your own State University. I guess they'd be some kind of authority. Here's the quote:

"Coyotes can be a significant problem to individual sheep-raisers and may occasionally kill young calves. Those who raise livestock should recognize that coyotes are a potential hazard and use guard dogs, fencing, pasture management and other practices that minimize opportunities for coyote depredation. Farmers who suffer loss or damage to livestock or pets are permitted to eliminate the “nuisance” coyotes. Uncontrolled domestic dogs are a much greater threat, responsible for losses to livestock far exceeding losses from coyotes."


And here's the link:

http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/coyote/coyote.htm

Coyotes on the north shore of the St Lawrence are the same as the ones on the south side ( they don't need passports or green cards to cross the border) There are far more sheep on this side of the river.