# Poll on 5 dollar surcharge for predators



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

These were kind of tough to write, but I think I got most main opinions. Feel free to add to it and discuss.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I think Ranchers that use the mountains for grazing should pony up some money for the predators. 90% of hunter will shoot the dogs when they get a chance. Plus we spend enough money for are tags and gear to go up there. That just me.


----------



## kailey29us (May 26, 2011)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I think Ranchers that use the mountains for grazing should pony up some money for the predators. 90% of hunter will shoot the dogs when they get a chance. Plus we spend enough money for are tags and gear to go up there. That just me.


+ 1 the sponsor of the bill also used the ranchers livestock losses to help pass the bill so I think they should help.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

I for one am not in favor of adding more fees to any of our tags. Yes it's only $5, but it's $5 for now, then in another year or so $5 more, and more, and more. This is already becoming to expensive of a sport we don't need any other increases. 
On top of that will it REALLY help? I doubt it. I think the Coyote is part of the problem but certainly not all of the problem. What are we doing about vehicles, or habitat loss, or poor winter range, or inconsistent weather patterns? It's all one big puzzle and the Coyote is only one piece of it.
What we NEED is for all of our hunting dollars to be spent on hunting issues and not being spent on any other issues our legislators deem fit. That should be step one to fixing this problem!!!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I drove through part of Sanpete county the other day. We saw 15 dead deer along the highway. I'm certain that UDOT cleans them up every few days, so the ones we saw were probably only a weeks worth of fatalities. If the ratio of 15 bucks to 100 does after the hunts are over is carried over to what we saw, there were roughly 13 does and 2 bucks. If every one of the does were pregnant with 2 fawns, that means that 41 deer died along that stretch of highway in roughly one week. It ain't hard to imagine that that's a BIG problem for the deer herds


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I drove through part of Sanpete county the other day. We saw 15 dead deer along the highway. I'm certain that UDOT cleans them up every few days, so the ones we saw were probably only a weeks worth of fatalities. If the ratio of 15 bucks to 100 does after the hunts are over is carried over to what we saw, there were roughly 13 does and 2 bucks. If every one of the does were pregnant with 2 fawns, that means that 41 deer died along that stretch of highway in roughly one week. It ain't hard to imagine that that's a BIG problem for the deer herds


Very astute observation. I live in Sanpete County, and there are LOTS of deer on my land, and LOTS of coyotes on my land, but I do NOT favor any fee increase being added to hunting licenses to 'manage' coyotes. In the current economic climate we are experiencing, and will be suffering from for a LONG time, in fact I predict it will get worse, much worse....but I digress, every dollar is hard to hold onto. That means hunters must now choose where/how to spend their limited funds. $5.00 isn't going to break anyone, but it all adds up, and to what end? There is NO evidence whatsoever that bounties on coyotes will help the deer herd in any measurable way. I spend 30+ hours a week in the saddle riding the hills, and I don't see very many coyote kills, but every time I get on the highway headed north to Manti, or northwest to Nephi, I see piles of deer next to the road, with lots and lots of roadkill. With the mild winter we had this year, why are the deer still hanging by the highways? Killing coyotes won't do anything but make people FEEL as if they are 'doing something'. Emotions and feelings are not the best ways to manage wildlife.........


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Elkoholic8 said:


> I for one am not in favor of adding more fees to any of our tags. Yes it's only $5, but it's $5 for now, then in another year or so $5 more, and more, and more. This is already becoming to expensive of a sport we don't need any other increases.
> On top of that will it REALLY help? I doubt it. I think the Coyote is part of the problem but certainly not all of the problem. What are we doing about vehicles, or habitat loss, or poor winter range, or inconsistent weather patterns? It's all one big puzzle and the Coyote is only one piece of it.
> What we NEED is for all of our hunting dollars to be spent on hunting issues and not being spent on any other issues our legislators deem fit. That should be step one to fixing this problem!!!


A box of shells cost more than a deer tag. A tank of gas cost more than 2 deer tags. A pair of boots cost more than 2 deer tags. A dozen arrows and broad heads cost as much as 6 deer tags. Really is the expense in deer hunting the cost of a tag? Even if it were a $100 it's the best bargain around.

You realize predator control is far far less expensive then habitat restoration, road fence and wildlife underpass projects. And controlling the weather which is very very expensive. Actually predator control may sound expensive but its a tiny drop in the bucket compared to habitat projects (100s of millions) that have not increased Utah's deer herd by a single deer. And fencing projects and wildlife underpasses (also 100s of millions) that may be serving to hinder wildlife in the long run. Results have been less than a success with them.

Out of all the factors struggling deer herds are facing. Predator control is a relative bargain.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I agree with Pro on this one. I don't think that yotes are doing as much damage to the deer as vehicles. When we get car\deer fatalities reduced deer will increas a bit in number. We will never know how many deer are actually killed by coyotes but don't forget that by the DWR's numbers there are more deer killed by vehicles than by hunters. This should be a large part of the "recovery plan's" focus.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Every time the fee increases for hunting licenses there is a faction that is getting their way. As stated previously, it is only $5. But it will be $5 more eventually, and $10 more for your duck stamp, and an increase in cost for your fishing license, then your big game tags will increase again.  And every time they do it....it will "only be $5." You get the point, it adds up quickly. It will begin to phase people completely out of a sport that is becoming increasingly expensive anyway. 

Who is this faction you ask? Nope...not anti-hunters that would LOVE to see a decrease in the amount of people in the field. There is a powerful faction among our own that would like to see this become a completely rich-man, sell to the highest bidder game. And don't think for a second they weren't behind this "meager" increase.


----------



## Elkoholic8 (Jan 15, 2008)

Iron Bear, I am not saying there is not a need for predator control. Fact is we need to keep the predator numbers under control. 
My point is that just going after coyotes is not going to bring back the deer numbers. There are several pieces of this puzzle that need to be fixed. I think the biggest problem is the vehicle collision rate. I know that fencing is expensive and potentially harmfull too. There is not just one fix all to this solution or it would have been fixed already. My problem is they just keep nickle and diming us to death!
For what it's worth, I believe SFW and thier views of "hunting is for the highest bidder" will be the death of this sport for the common man!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

It going to get hard for the low class people to keep hunting. With what we spend on all of are gear, tags,gas everything to go hunt a couple weeks a year for the meat. We can buy three cows for that price and still come out of head. You are pushing the family with young kids out and the kids out on the street.Like I said before i dont see the rancher that you the hill for Grazing paying any extra money.

Pro I know you don't use the hills for grazing your cattle. But do you know how much they pay for there permit to have there cattle up there ?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Pro I know you don't use the hills for grazing your cattle. But do you know how much they pay for there permit to have there cattle up there ?


Read through this fact sheet: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html



> The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year's level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2011 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2010.


Someone who understands all this might need to explain a little more. :lol:

EDIT*

I need to add one other article I found:

http://extension.usu.edu/utahrangelands/files/uploads/Literature_Review.pdf



> *Livestock Interactions with Wild Ungulates*
> Early research indicated that an overabundance of livestock influences wild ungulate species by causing competition for food resources. Although cattle and wild ungulates often focus on different types of vegetation, diet overlap increases when forage becomes less available in the winter and early spring (Chaikina and Ruckstuhl, 2006; Bastian et al., 1991). Heavy livestock grazing also affects wild ungulate habitat by altering plant biomass, species composition, and structural components, such as vegetation height and cover. Additionally, the physical presence of cattle can cause behavioral changes that make foraging less productive. The combined result of resource competition, modification in rangeland structure, and the presence of livestock can contribute to reduced fat content, reproductive rates, and survival in many wild ungulate species (Chaikina and Ruckstuhl, 2006; Bleich et al., 2005).





> *Management Strategies*
> Even though there are several cases that demonstrate the negative impacts of heavy livestock grazing on wild ungulates, there are a considerable number of examples that reveal compatibility between livestock and wild ungulate species (Anderson and Scherzinger, 1975; Chaikina and Ruckstuhl, 2006). In fact, properly managed and specialized livestock grazing systems can maintain or improve habitat for wildlife (Vavra et al., 2007; Bleich et al., 2005). In various ecosystems, grazing is an important ecological process that can increase the chances of survival of some species and enhance community and landscape diversity (West, 1993; Bock et al., 1993).


I'm not making any personal statement on this as I don't know enough, I just found this part interesting and I need to research more.


----------



## Mrad (Mar 25, 2011)

The rumor is that not any regular Joe hunter is even going to be able to collect on the $50 bounty. :x


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Saying coyotes don't effect deer is like saying wolves don't effect elk. Coyotes act like wolves and even hunt in packs on antelope island. The can and will take down full grown bucks and antelope. Two years ago they killed a 250" buck that was as fit as any deer on the island.

No one is saying or ignoring the fact cars don't effect deer. This is why there are deer fencing and wildlife bridges going up all over this state.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I also don't think anyone is saying that coyotes don't affect deer...what people are saying is that this bill probably won't make any noticeable change to deer numbers.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> I also don't think anyone is saying that coyotes don't affect deer...what people are saying is that this bill probably won't make any noticeable change to deer numbers.


+1000000


----------



## Homer (Sep 1, 2011)

I think five bucks is a small investment. If just one more coyote is killed than last year because of this, I am just fine with it. 

What is UWC doing for raising deer populations, if your going to do +100000000 I would like to know what you are actively doing.

Some of you only got excited about killing coyotes because of the bounty, but without the bounty, I'll bet many of you wont go out and hunt them, I'll bet most if you have never killed a coyote, so paying an extra five bucks is a small fee for something that benefits us all, cause what you were doing before did nothing.


----------



## Homer (Sep 1, 2011)

Also, charging the cattlemen and farmers more does nothing, well until you go to the grocery store and the prices have jumped. They ain't gonna just eat the increase. Beef cost what it does because its cheaper to raise them on the mountain than it is to shovel hay to them all year.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Homer said:


> I think five bucks is a small investment. If just one more coyote is killed than last year because of this, I am just fine with it.


That would be a terrible ROI. Maybe you should rethink this?



Homer said:


> What is UWC doing for raising deer populations, if your going to do +100000000 I would like to know what you are actively doing.


So if you do not agree with the $5 additional charge you are automatically a part of the UWC? Man, we as hunters are more divided than I thought. Do you know what the UWC is about? Maybe you should go to their webiste and read up and go to some of their projects to helpout (http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org/_WELCOME.html). I might add that they are not funded by the sale of conservation/expo tags (which I really like). Oh, yeah and there are those of us who have been supporting coyote control for years by DONATING VOLUNTARILY with our big game apps. :roll:



Homer said:


> Some of you only got excited about killing coyotes because of the bounty, but without the bounty, I'll bet many of you wont go out and hunt them, I'll bet most if you have never killed a coyote, so paying an extra five bucks is a small fee for something that benefits us all, cause what you were doing before did nothing.


I wasn't going to hunt them regardless of the current bounty or it possibly being raised to $50 as I'm not an effective coyote hunter and I'd rather leave the killing to those who are the best at it and can do it in the right time/places that benefit the herd the most (ROI again). I have killed coyotes , but I've never specifically targeted them. Does it really benefit us ALL? What if the bounties aren't offered in the county where I hunt deer? What if my unit of the 30 doesn't get a good portion of the funds? Hopefully you see there are some problems with how the current increase came about and what it actually states in the bills.


----------



## Homer (Sep 1, 2011)

One more dead coyote is a plus.

Does not mean YOU are part of anything. I asked a UWC guy the question that wrote the +10000000. I am well aware of what UWC does without going to that link, they pick up garbage and teach young'ns to fish. They put up signs and trim bushes. What I asked was what are they doing to increase our deer population.

Donating app fees, really??

So donating five bucks towards something positive, that you are not able to do, but is a positive for our deer herds is a bad thing, but donating your time, and gas to go do a Utah lake yard clean up, that in noway helps deer is better, but it cost you more???

So your unit gets less help. This is for the overall population, not a community fundraiser for Judds hunting spot. Big picture. I swear I get closer to joining SFW everyday.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

> well until you go to the grocery store and the prices have jumped. They ain't gonna just eat the increase


I guess you have not been to the store and got any meat for the last couple years. Because that price is going up with everything already. So what that going to matter if they have to pay 5 bucks a head.I spend more in my stuff to get up there to hunt then the cattle men do to put there cattle up there. 100 head of cattle that just a Little over 100 bucks for them . I just put that in gas and food to get up there. That can't counting scouting trips.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Homer said:


> One more dead coyote is a plus.
> 
> Does not mean YOU are part of anything. I asked a UWC guy the question that wrote the +10000000. I am well aware of what UWC does without going to that link, they pick up garbage and teach young'ns to fish. They put up signs and trim bushes. What I asked was what are they doing to increase our deer population.
> 
> ...


GH2, I think killing coyotes is very important, but it is much more complicated than just giving a $50 bounty and thinking it will solve the problem. If you kill a coyote at the wrong time of the year, you may actually increase coyote population. I am all for money going to predator management, I just don't think the increased bounty will help at all. Also, this is all my personal opinion.

So are you coming to the clean-up on April 14th? I would love to meet you.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Homer said:


> One more dead coyote is a plus.


You missed my point, ROI is the key



Homer said:


> Does not mean YOU are part of anything. I asked a UWC guy the question that wrote the +10000000. I am well aware of what YACHT does without going to that link, they pick up garbage and teach young'ns to fish. They put up signs and trim bushes. What I asked was what are they doing to increase our deer population.


Once again, a lot of the UWC guys do stuff on their own time outside of UWC to help the herds. That is why I asked if you knew what they were about. Go and read their mission statement http://www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org/UWC.html and you will understand what they are about. Just because a UWC guy doesn't agree with the $5 extra fee, doesn't mean he isn't pulling his own fair share outside of ANY org. :roll:



Homer said:


> Donating app fees, really??


You obviously haven't been donating to the DWR coyote control fund, otherwise you would've understood that comment. :lol:



Homer said:


> So donating five bucks towards something positive, that you are not able to do, but is a positive for our deer herds is a bad thing, but donating your time, gas to go do a Utah lake yard clean up, that in noway helps deer is better, but it cost you more??


Once again I'm not sure you understand the mission statement of the UWC? Go and read what they are about, it isn't just about deer which is whey they do other projects.

If you thought that $5 wasn't going to give you a desired ROI why would you invest? You aren't from Utah County are you? If so, I've got some sweet tahitian nectar that will make you invincible, you just need to give me $5.



Homer said:


> So your unit gets less help. This is for the overall population, not a community fundraiser for Judd hunting spot. Big picture.


There was some obvious TIC sarcasm in my comment that I can't tell if you picked up on it, but oh well. My point is that you are asserting it will help everyone, when it might not. Hey, even PBH wants to include predatory fish in this bounty program, does it help him? FYI, my spot doesn't need as much coyote help as it does with highway mortality and poaching. Let's raise everyoe's car registration by $5 so it will help everyone out! :roll:



Homer said:


> I swear I get closer to joining SFW everyday.


As long as you get involved that is the key (hey and you will most likely fit in). They have some great Tahitian Nectar over there. :O•-:


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> Homer said:
> 
> 
> > One more dead coyote is a plus.
> ...


+1000000000


----------



## Homer (Sep 1, 2011)

Someone didn't take a FFA class.Would you rather those cattlemen feed those cows hay they raise? Would you also be for ranchers only raising these cows on private land?

Jahan I could careless about the bounty, take it off the table, put the bounty money into predator management. I still don't think paying five bucks to control a enemy of our deer herds is bad. Judd if you know of fish eating big game, stay away from those banks. But big game fees should not go towards perch.

UWC members may do things on their own, but that is not what I asked.Jahan I won't be there, il be trying to kill more predators on the ranch. I'd rather stick around killing bird killers than picking up after slob sportsmen. Who is GH2???


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Homer said:


> Someone didn't take a FFA class.Would you rather those cattlemen feed those cows hay they raise? Would you also be for ranchers only raising these cows on private land?
> 
> Jahan I could careless about the bounty, take it off the table, put the bounty money into predator management. I still don't think paying five bucks to control a enemy of our deer herds is bad. Judd if you know of fish eating big game, stay away from those banks. But big game fees should not go towards perch.
> 
> UWC members may do things on their own, but that is not what I asked.Jahan I won't be there, il be trying to kill more predators on the ranch. I'd rather stick around killing bird killers than picking up after slob sportsmen. Who is GH2???


I fill if extra money is going to predator management, lets give it to the hired professional coyote shooters and kill coyotes at the right time in the right place. Now this doesn't mean hunters shouldn't go out and kill coyotes and I think it is great you are killing coyotes on your ranch. I am also not sure why you are hell bent on taking my opinion as UWC's where I have clearly said many times this is my opinion. I think we are actually pretty close to agreement on this subject.


----------



## Homer (Sep 1, 2011)

Cause I like yanking your chain mostly. Its not just coyotes, actually I have yet to kill a coyote out there. Fox and ***** and skunks are really what I need to get a handle on. I also have another 200 acres too get fenced. Lots going on right now.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Homer said:


> Jahan I could careless about the bounty, take it off the table, put the bounty money into predator management. I still don't think paying five bucks to control a enemy of our deer herds is bad. Judd if you know of fish eating big game, stay away from those banks. But big game fees should not go towards perch.


After all that I can say we are on the same page! OOO°)OO

I've been donating to the coyote predation fund for years and as I said in another post the $5 bucks isn't going to hurt me (but I have issues with how it came about and I can understand why others wouldn't want to pay it). I'd rather the money go to the professionals as well.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

To the guys that don't think predator control works. I have an example of how it can. I have a friend who hunted and trapped his parrents farm when he was growing up. He killed skunks, ***** and and what ever goes boo in the night. Well when he was a kid he had a great place to hunt pheasants and rabbits. Now several years later all you see on this property is foxes, ***** and skunks. Sure hunting predators is only a temporally unless you eradicate them. If you don't kill them all nature will just balance its self out and man will be left out of the loop. I don't think we need to make them extinct but they need to feel the same pressure as our deer herds are being hunted. 

I know the best way for the local deer I hunt to rebound is to take the same approach as my friend did and hunt the last crap out of the predators. If I keep up the pressure the deer will rebound. If I let up it will revert back to a natural state and ill be the one going hungry.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> To the guys that don't think predator control works. I have an example of how it can. I have a friend who hunted and trapped his parrents farm when he was growing up. He killed skunks, ***** and and what ever goes boo in the night. Well when he was a kid he had a great place to hunt pheasants and rabbits. Now several years later all you see on this property is foxes, ***** and skunks. Sure hunting predators is only a temporally unless you eradicate them. If you don't kill them all nature will just balance its self out and man will be left out of the loop. I don't think we need to make them extinct but they need to feel the same pressure as our deer herds are being hunted.
> 
> I know the best way for the local deer I hunt to rebound is to take the same approach as my friend did and hunt the last crap out of the predators. If I keep up the pressure the deer will rebound. If I let up it will revert back to a natural state and ill be the one going hungry.


So who has said predator control doesn't work? I haven't saw a single person say that, just curious why you keep saying this.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

jahan said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't think anyone is saying that coyotes don't affect deer...what people are saying is that this bill probably won't make any noticeable change to deer numbers.
> ...


Ya taking 250 coyotes off the Monroe this time of year or any other unit isn't going to help the deer out. Palease!! Wake up! Heck if I go out on my own unit and take a few out this time of year It will most defiantly help the deer out.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The 200+ coyotes taken off Monroe was going to happen with or without this bill...coyote removal on Monroe started last year WITHOUT the bill!

Do you think that a coyote bounty would actually increase the number of coyotes killed to that extent?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > To the guys that don't think predator control works. I have an example of how it can. I have a friend who hunted and trapped his parrents farm when he was growing up. He killed skunks, ***** and and what ever goes boo in the night. Well when he was a kid he had a great place to hunt pheasants and rabbits. Now several years later all you see on this property is foxes, ***** and skunks. Sure hunting predators is only a temporally unless you eradicate them. If you don't kill them all nature will just balance its self out and man will be left out of the loop. I don't think we need to make them extinct but they need to feel the same pressure as our deer herds are being hunted.
> ...


yeah...me too! Who said predator control doesn't work?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wy2 you elude to that premise constantly. 

It goes something like this "despite the best available science" then you follow it up with some long winded links about how a experiment was conducted somewhere that concludes predators aren't a factor.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

*Predator control does work but not as well as most think.*

C'mon guys are we the sensationalistic media that has to take everything that is said and try to turn it around and use it as a gaffe? I think most of us agree that we need predator control. However, there are other factors that are more in our control to manage.

There has been an incresed assault on coyotes in the past years all over the west. Predator hunting is the new band wagon and there are more people jumping on it than ever before and their numbers are still growing.

and BTW.... *Predator control doesn't work as well as most think. *
Did I just say the same thing using different words?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Their numbers are still growing or are hard to control because without 1080 you can't kill them all. But to sit back and saw screw predator hunting all together is tard mentality at its best.

Just think how many deer we wouldn't have if we didn't kill any cats, bears or coyotes.

I for one will take the ears off every pup and adult I find this spring. It is now worth $$ it to pack a gun when im scouting.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> *Predator control doesn't work as well as most think. *
> Did I just say the same thing using different words?


Ya we should ignore the wolves cause they aren't hurting anything like the coyotes aren't.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I don't think we should ignore anything. I will be cutting ears off as well. I think we need predator management as much or more as before.

The wolves are a different beast altogether though. I would like to see not a single wolf in Utah. Wolves kill for sport. Wolves do not return to previous kills as much as other predators if any. To me this is wanton waste. Coyotes will mouse and squirrel where wolves will not. Also wolves are much bolder that yotes and will attack humans if they think it an easy prey.

To me the current scenario with wolves is like you and me pouring water on a fire to put it out (yotes, lions, bears) and then having some yahoo toss a gallon of gas into it on the other side (wolves). No matter how much water we pour the gas makes it burn hotter and faster.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Wy2 you elude to that premise constantly.


NO, I don't! That is simply what YOU want to hear. What I say constantly is that we MUST know that predation is additive and not compensatory before we go whacking predators. What I say constantly is that LION predation on Monroe is compensatory and we should not go killing them to aid deer because it won't help. What I say constantly is that coyote predation is having a larger impact on deer populations on Monroe than lions....NEVER have I said that predator control doesn't work. I have given numerous links to studies that have clearly shown that simply going out and killing lions and coyotes will NOT unnecessarily increase deer populations. I have shown situation after situation where predators were reduced and deer populations did NOT respond...these studies refute your assertion that if we kill all the predators we will have more deer. I am all for reducing lions and coyotes where it can be shown that they are limiting the deer populations. I am all for our predator plans that explicitly say this in them. But, I do NOT believe that all predation on deer is compensatory nor do I believe it is all additive. You, on the other hand, believe that all predation is additive and think that eliminating predators will always result in more prey/deer....that is an ignorant and uneducated viewpoint.

Those who come on here and try to spin things and say that some us are against predator control are worse than the sensationalistic media...I don't recall ANYONE ever saying that we shouldn't control predators....the extent at which they are controlled is what we are debating.


----------



## Elkntr16 (Mar 22, 2012)

Seems like little kid math to me. Kill a lion, coyote, wolf today, this will save a deer tomorrow. No? They sure are not helping the herds grow! Sure there are other factors stunting and declining their numbers, but until I see four coyotes having a tea party over some nice tree bark and mushrooms, holding signs that read " deer are our friends, not food" kill'em all, it won't hurt.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Elkntr16 said:


> Seems like little kid math to me. Kill a lion, coyote, wolf today, this will save a deer tomorrow. No? They sure are not helping the herds grow! Sure there are other factors stunting and declining their numbers, but until I see four coyotes having a tea party over some nice tree bark and mushrooms, holding signs that read " deer are our friends, not food" kill'em all, it won't hurt.


This guy could qualify to be a state legislator!!

ignorant. Plane and simple. Passionate about a subject that he does not understand. That's why we have problems with our wildlife.


----------



## Elkntr16 (Mar 22, 2012)

This guy above really thinks he is a biologist. Plain and simple, I can't draw you a picture, but animals that eat other animals have a dramatic effect on the animals being eaten!

This guy would make a great vegan and peta spokesman.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Mrad said:


> The rumor is that not any regular Joe hunter is even going to be able to collect on the $50 bounty. :x


Nope - advocacy groups for the bill used the $50 bounty increase to help sell the legislation to sportsmen, but there is no guarantee in the legislation that any of the COUNTY bounties will be increased to that level. That's right -you will only be able to get a bounty from counties that participate - it's not a statewide bounty program.

It is; however, a statewide increase in your big game tag fees...go figure. :evil:


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Elkntr16 said:


> This guy above really thinks he is a biologist. Plain and simple, I can't draw you a picture, *but animals that eat other animals have a dramatic effect on the animals being eaten!*
> 
> This guy would make a great vegan and peta spokesman.


That statment there is like saying all tall people are good at basketball and couldn't be more misinformed. He is not a biologist and neither am I but I guarantee we have a better understanding of the dynamics of the coyote problem we have than the average Joe. More people "hunt" coyotes now than ever before and their numbers increase year after year. Tell us how your blanket statement explains that; I know I can do it.

The comparison to the legislature is spot on. throw money and resources at a problem you have no comprehension of because a powerfull lobby group said it was the best thing for the state. Guess what..... i doubt that lobby group has a biologist on staff that did his due diligence and came up with a study that concludes that "mass extermination of coyotes will make the herds rebound."

Welcome to the forum BTW and don't take anything personally. We are just enthusiates passionate about our sport.


----------



## Elkntr16 (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't take things personally.

This is not the same as saying all tall people are good at basketball. My statement is spot on. If your not a predator, then your dinner. Being eaten drops your little family group by one, that's a decrease a big negative in your species survival. Had a hunter shot that predator the day before, you would not have been eaten, atleast by him. Fact is, predators kill and eat and have an affect on deer and other grass eaters. We know this, there is plenty of evidence supporting this. just like we know for a fact being tall does not make you Michael jordan.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I get your statement; It's still misinformed. Kill a coyote at the wrong time of the year and you end up with a higher population that will eat more deer than if you hadn't killed it. So all of a sudden a 1 hunter + 1 dead coyote = more coyotes and more dead deer. Certain things that apply to human society do not apply to the wild equally. Keep in mind we are a species that has for all intents and purposes quasi-controlled/dominated it's environment.


----------



## Elkntr16 (Mar 22, 2012)

Thanks to the wildlife board there will be a bunch of deer hunters without permits this year. Shooting them year round will fix that. The deer hunters have an incentive to kill them. Kill them and as deer numbers increase so do permit numbers. Again simple math.

When exactly is this right time? Right now they just finished up breeding. Kill those females and no pups are born. August??? Pups are dumb and easy? Winter?? Easy meals and a growling belly, you'll do dumb stuff like getting lead poison when you're hungry. So when?


----------



## lobowatch (Apr 23, 2011)

o-|| o-||


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few random comments;

1.


Elkntr16 said:


> Thanks to the wildlife board there will be a bunch of deer hunters without permits this year. Shooting them year round will fix that.


Wow, I REALLY hope I draw my tag now, I wouldn't want to get shot otherwise. :shock: Another of "The Dons" ideas? 

2. It looks like there is a huge variance of opinion among board members, but it it clear that almost all respondents favor at least some predator control. I am at a loss why some keep saying that the majority or many here are not.

3. With regards to getting the farming community to "pay its fair share", don't count on it. I alluded to this briefly in the "other" thread about the subject, but there is no way in Hades that Randy Parker and the Farm Bureau is going to allow the legislature to charge the farmers with any depredation fees. For either good or bad, they are one of the most powerful lobbying groups on (Utah) capitol hill, and are not easily defeated politically. Right or wrong, unless we can get the legislature to grant a higher DWR earmark out of the general fund, we will have to foot the bill ourselves.

4. It is obvious that we disagree on the specifics of how to best run a predator program. (The poll writer must have done a good job huh?  ) Perhaps it is good that the bill was open ended and seems to allow the DWR discretion on how to implement it. I agree with PBH that the division does also need some additional guidance on implementation so the money is spent on what the authors really intend. (I'll also be cool with a bounty on perch too if it came to that. -|\O- )

5. It has been noted that concern exists that the Farm Bureau and "the Don" circumvented the RAC/Wb system to enact this. Perhaps, but this is an avenue that is also available to the rest of us if we feel stonewalled by an unresponsive WB or for other reasons. Something to consider in the future.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Funny how when the sheep in af canyon were introduced the lions just about ate everyone of them. So a bounty was issued and 30+ lions were taken from af canyon to provo canyon in one year. Guess what the deer five years later exploded. there were big bucks and the sheep population went up as well. 

When we had 1080 we had deer and rabbits.

So predator control doesn't work? Ya right!


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

MadHunter said:


> I get your statement; It's still misinformed. Kill a coyote at the wrong time of the year and you end up with a higher population that will eat more deer than if you hadn't killed it. So all of a sudden a 1 hunter + 1 dead coyote = more coyotes and more dead deer. Certain things that apply to human society do not apply to the wild equally. Keep in mind we are a species that has for all intents and purposes quasi-controlled/dominated it's environment.


honest question here. Can you explain the time of year thing to me and anyone else who cares to hear it?


----------



## huntnbum (Nov 8, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Funny how when the sheep in af canyon were introduced the lions just about ate everyone of them. So a bounty was issued and 30+ lions were taken from af canyon to provo canyon in one year. Guess what the deer five years later exploded. there were big bucks and the sheep population went up as well.
> 
> *When we had 1080 we had deer and rabbits.
> *
> So predator control doesn't work? Ya right!


 :O||:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Funny how when the sheep in af canyon were introduced the lions just about ate everyone of them. So a bounty was issued and 30+ lions were taken from af canyon to provo canyon in one year. Guess what the deer five years later exploded. there were big bucks and the sheep population went up as well.
> 
> *When we had 1080 we had deer and rabbits*.
> 
> So predator control doesn't work? Ya right!


To be fair during the deer heyday it was kind of a perfect storm. There were very few predators (the reason you mentioned above), the habitat was great, there were very few elk, and there were a lot less people and encroachment. Predators are one part, be it an important part, of the equation.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Homer said:


> One more dead coyote is a plus.
> 
> Does not mean YOU are part of anything. I asked a UWC guy the question that wrote the +10000000. I am well aware of what UWC does without going to that link, they pick up garbage and teach young'ns to fish. They put up signs and trim bushes. What I asked was what are they doing to increase our deer population?


I think it's a near sighted view if you are judging any organization based on only one aspect of their objectives. UWC stands for United *Wildlife* Cooperative not United *Where are the mule deer?* Cooperative. If I applied your view to SFW, I would have to ask what they've done for fishing lately, since F stands for FISH.

When it comes to mule deer, I won't speak for the Northerners, but you musta missed last year's Southern UWC sponsored 200 acre lop and scatter (removing young juniper and pinyon that's invading and crowding out the winter forage), the recent Southern/Southeastern DWR Mule Deer Open Houses and DWR/sportsmen's meetings where we were the only ones to provide recommended Region and Statewide unit buck to doe ratios and tag numbers and the rationale behind them (most which they adopted per the current recommendations) and you'll undoubtedly miss the riparian bare root plant/willow plantings in Kingston Canyon and on the Sevier River next month, and the winter habitat tours with the DWR on the Parowan Front on March 31st and in the SE Region on May 5th, and the seeding later on this summer on the Parowan Front. Some of these projects were generated by us and some by the DWR, and some of them are in conjunction with other groups, but we are a COOPERATIVE after all.

Now, maybe you don't consider this the caliber yet of SFW or the other groups, but we're growing. Also, you have to remember that we have no sign up fees, nor dues, nor do we auction public tags and we survive solely on donated money and labor and some fundraising. We don't aspire to generate $4 or $5 million per year. We don't feel we need to. Our intent is to represent the thousands of outdoorsmen/women who aren't normally represented at the RAC and Wildlife Board meetings. Additionally, many of our projects are intentionally geared for families and there are some limitations to that philosophy.

Bottom line, our goals aren't the same as other groups, so if SFW (or MDF, SCI, RMEF, WTF or ?) better fits your views, then by all means, join up with them and we'll see you on some of their projects if they have the wisdom to invite us.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Elkntr16 said:


> Plain and simple, I can't draw you a picture, but animals that eat other animals have a dramatic effect on the animals being eaten!


http://bit.ly/GTbNHs

Once again, we have a sportsman that is passionate about a subject that he simply does not understand.

Ask Iron Bear -- he's learned about additive vs. compensatory predation. What he learned is that it isn't as simple as what you've tried to make it. Sure, predators have a dramatic effect on their prey -- but that effect can be either a positive or a negative. Removing coyotes does not mean that "the herd" will increase. In fact, every study done in the Western US suggests otherwise.

I'm not a biologist. I'm a computer nerd. Even I understand this. You could too, if you wanted to. I don't think you want to.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

PBH said:


> Elkntr16 said:
> 
> 
> > Plain and simple, I can't draw you a picture, but animals that eat other animals have a dramatic effect on the animals being eaten!
> ...


Cough BS cough cough. It sounds like the studies you've read that suggest coyotes don't affect deer are the same studies that say wolfs don't effect elk and lions don't affect deer. Why dont you step away from the puter and take a nature hike and try and find a coyote turd that isnt full of deer hair. In case you haven't noticed the prey base for coyotes has crashed. There are very few rabbits and very few rodents compared to even ten years ago let alone 20 years ago. So their main food is now deer! This ain't 1988


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

PBH, Since you are one of only 2 guy's I have marked as foe on this site. I hardly think you can or should speak to my educations here on the UWN. I would have never seen your post if SWB didn't quote you. 

And one thing I have learned about the additive vs compensatory. Is that it assumes deer are at capacity which is rarely if ever determined. So with out that determination one hillbillies assumption is as good as an armchair biologists link to a study. At least one is reality based. But its a real world reality that the hillbilly lived and not read.

I concur with just about everything SWB say's in concerns to predators and deer. He's is one of the few that understand surplus and wildlife allocation.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Cough BS cough cough. It sounds like the studies you've read that suggest coyotes don't affect deer are the same studies that say wolfs don't effect elk and lions don't affect deer. Why dont you step away from the puter and take a nature hike and try and find a coyote turd that isnt full of deer hair. In case you haven't noticed the prey base for coyotes has crashed. There are very few rabbits and very few rodents compared to even ten years ago let alone 20 years ago. So their main food is now deer! This ain't 1988


Ummm:


PBH said:


> Sure, predators have a dramatic effect on their prey -- but that effect can be either a positive or a negative. Removing coyotes does not mean that "the herd" will increase. In fact, every study done in the Western US suggests otherwise.


 *-HELP!-*

Very few rodents? WTH???? The entire central part of the state has been taken over by pot guts! I have had 400+ deer on my land all winter, and now I have THOUSANDS of pot guts destroying my fields/pastures. I also happen to have coyotes on my land, and I have had guys come in to thin them out, with out a single coyote having the air let out of it. My point.....coyotes are like ****roaches, you can kill every one in sight, even poison them, and they come back in higher numbers. I have ample rodents for coyotes to munch on, and yet I am losing high dollar calves to the dirty SOB's. And yet, I am seeing LOTS and LOTS of fawns that have made it through the winter, more sets of twins than I can ever recall.

Coyotes DO have an affect on mule deer, they are NOT the primary, nor the secondary cause of the current mule deer population, and neither is the number of buck deer hunters!


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/jan08/ ... nghunt.cfm


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I sure would like to meet Mr. Fredrickson!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

horsesma said:


> I sure would like to meet Mr. Fredrickson!


+1


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

horsesma said:


> I sure would like to meet Mr. Fredrickson!


++1,250,000!! Too bad he wasn't consulted before the 2 coyote bills were passed! Then again, what does he know that would have made a difference?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

10yearquest said:


> MadHunter said:
> 
> 
> > I get your statement; It's still misinformed. Kill a coyote at the wrong time of the year and you end up with a higher population that will eat more deer than if you hadn't killed it. So all of a sudden a 1 hunter + 1 dead coyote = more coyotes and more dead deer. Certain things that apply to human society do not apply to the wild equally. Keep in mind we are a species that has for all intents and purposes quasi-controlled/dominated it's environment.
> ...


Killing a dominant pair will collapse territorial boundries. This in turn allows for less dominant dogs to establish smaller territoris than normal. So taking a dominant dog out of the equation while the pups are being pushed out of the den will cause a surge in reproduction. Coyotes tend to reproduce less if a dominant pair prevents younger coyotes from establishing a territory. The best time to kill coyotes is prior to them pairing up and during birthing. By taking out the pair you also kill the pups. However, if the pair is not killed the chances of the pups surviving are higher and there is minimal effect on the overall population. To effectively control coyotes they need to be mass exterminated and the most effective method for mass extermination is poison.

I am all for killing yotes but I do not believe for a second that they will get the deer to rebound. Coyotes are not like wolves, coyotes are actually omnivores where wolves are not. Coyotes are also far more resiliant than mule deer. While mule deer populations have been declining all over coyotes seem to be booming everywhere. If mule deer were the main food source of coyotes declining food sources would also indicate declining coyotes. It's all about carrying capacity right? Coyotes main food sources are rodents, rabbits, and during this time of year.. baby calves! Ask a cattle rancher. They do kill deer and especially fawns but to say that deer are the top food source for yotes is actually erroneous.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Coyotes are not like wolves, coyotes are actually omnivores where wolves are not.


hm every coyote crap ive seen is missing ants, bugs, and vegetables. They all have deer hair in them.

Coyotes main food sources are rodents, rabbits, and during this time of year.. baby calves!Ask a cattle rancher. They do kill deer and especially fawns but to say that deer are the top food source for yotes is actually erroneous.

I only saw one jack rabbit last year. I didnt see any the year before. I dont think coyotes are eating many rabbits. One of the state park rangers on antelope island told me the coyotes out there arent eating to many jack rabbits because there aren't any. They told me the coyotes can and will take fully mature bucks on a routine basis's.One of which was a 250" buck in 2010. They also take full grown antelope.

[/quote]


----------



## pheaz (Feb 11, 2011)

HHHMMMM- I wonder why sheep herders also run Great Pyrenees (Pyrenean Mountain Dog) with there herds.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I only saw one jack rabbit last year. I didnt see any the year before.


You need to get out more...I went fishing on Saturday for a few hours; I must have jumped at least 10 just by walking the stream banks.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Rabbits are on the rise where I have been as well.



swbuckmaster said:


> hm every coyote crap ive seen is missing ants, bugs, and vegetables. They all have deer hair in them.


That's because ants, bugs and plant matter get digested and the bug dark lump you see covered in hair is mostly composoed of ant, bugs, and plant matter. Hair is not digestible therefore you see it on the scat.

SW... after having passed through gastric acid and about 20 ft of guts and having been stripped of the outer layers of cuticula and melanin you can actually tell what it came from? WOW!!!


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Anyone else think its odd that tag numbers went dow and NOW they need an extra five bucks per tag to control coyotes. Will someone good at math and numbers please figure out how much money was lost to tag cuts and how much will be gained with "predator control fees" just for fun?


----------

