# Coyote control/Bounty!



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Not sure if anyone has seen this or not? I thought I would post a link.

Please tell me what you think. Good or bad?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... e.html.csp


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Hmmm. Raising license tags to save mule deer? I sure remember a few politicians saying not to come back for more money.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I can remember discussing this last year. I concluded that even though I had a document disclosing the amounts that each county in Utah had for the coyote bounty, we were only able to identify 2 locations where the bounty could be collected. I called a few county offices where specific members wanted me to inquire about and no one had any idea where the bounty could be collected. Don Peay could increase the bounty to $100.00 per set of ears, but it doesn't do any good if there are only 2 locations revealed statewide. This is something that the DWR does not control. 

Who do we need to contact to print some kind of pamphlet on where to collect the bounty?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Who is going to control pay out. Counties? The DWR? SFW? State Rep's? Drop boxes with a address and a check sent in the mail?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I think it a good idea. but I do not like the raising tag price to cover it. That part no thanks. Like said where are you going to take the ears and get the money?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The guy sponsoring the bill is from Monroe. Claims that there are more coyotes than livestock. Gimme a break. There's more sheep than flies, and more cows than ticks in this state. If a cattleman proposes this, then let the cattlemen pay for it.


----------



## bigdaddyx4 (Jan 11, 2008)

So what are the two locations to collect bounties??


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://bbartel.myweb.uga.edu/Site/Publi ... 03_WSB.pdf


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I hope I'm okay posting these few sentences from the report:



> Our results suggest that the bounty program did not lead to substantial recruitment of new participants. While nearly half of respondents reported increased spending as a result of the program, the method most commonly used (calling and shooting) produced relatively little investment or local economic activity when compared to trapping, snaring, or aerial gunning. Participants said their most important motives for taking part were to enjoy the outdoors and protect big-game species, while additional income was minimally important. Based on county records, a total of 1,035 coyotes were harvested during the program in 2000, probably less than 1% of the coyotes in participating counties. Population models suggest this is far below the level necessary to reduce coyote abundance for even one year. Overall, these results suggest that while Utah's coyote bounty may provide an enhanced, subsidized recreation program for a small segment of Utah citizens, it is unlikely to have any beneficial effect on populations of livestock or big game.


Quote is found in the conclusion section at the end of the article: http://bbartel.myweb.uga.edu/Site/Publications_files/Bartel_Brunson03_WSB.pdf


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

I like the idea. I would pay 5-10 $ more if it was 100% for bounties and it helps our deer herd. 

GIVE A LITTLE AND TAKE A LITTLE!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Here's a question; At a meeting at Jordan commons about 15 months ago, Jim Karpowitz essentially said that wildlife services, who are responsible for control of coyotes in Utah (Through the division) stated that public hunters more or less don't have an impact on the way coyotes effect deer. In fact, I recall him saying that in some cases the public was detrimental to their objective. What exactly is the intent of this bill? Have they changed their mind? Is this really going to impact deer numbers? Do they have a projection on their desired achievements?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Would that money be better spent on professionals?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> In fact, I recall him saying that in some cases the public was detrimental to their objective.


That was an interesting comment. They basically said there is a dominant female in a group and it is she that goes into heat at a specific time. If a professional takes her out at the proper time, the other females wont come into heat so its a generation of new pups prevented that year.

JoeHunter goes out to do some "good", shoots the dominant female before her cycle, the rest of her female pups go into heat becoming dominant females of new groups which then leads to many more pups than if the original female hadnt been killed.

Thats the gist of the argument, not sure I completely agree with it but it was interesting to hear.

-DallanC


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

robiland said:


> I like the idea. I would pay 5-10 $ more if it was 100% for bounties and it helps our deer herd.
> 
> GIVE A LITTLE AND TAKE A LITTLE!


I think anyone who likes mule deer would say that they would be willing to pay a little more IF it would help deer....but, the question is whether it will. IF it didn't help deer, would you still feel the same about a price increase?

My problem is that across the country study after study and state after state has found that coyote bounties don't help reduce coyote numbers....so are we simply repeating the past and trying something that won't work?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

I think the $5-$10 increase is great for those who already hunt coyotes. But didn't the article show there wasn't a significant increase in coyote hunters? Also it basically found it didn't impact the coyote population enought to help livestock OR wildlife (deer). If that is the case I'm not okay with paying an additional $5-$10 dollars on my tag fees if it goes specificaly to coyote bounties. If it instead went to a DWR coyote fund set aside for professionals to kill coyotes at the right time and in the right way I'd consider it. But I need to do more research to make sure even if that is helping.


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm not ok paying more for the deer tags. This seems to be a way for the cattlemen to get sportsmen to pay for coyote control. How about we up the fees to graze and use that money to pay for "professionals" to hunt the coyotes?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

We have a winner! Cattlemen wanting the sportsmen to pay for a bounty on coyotes.


----------



## love2hunt (Oct 28, 2008)

So why am I not at all surprised that Don Peay is behind this bill? He tried holding these wonderful statewide meetings solicting everyone to pour their hard earned money into his pipe dream of building a trophey deer hunting state and when he didn't get the funds he thought we would, he found a politician to pass a bill that would force everyone to give him their money. What a piece of work. When are people going to see through this guys tactics and stop him?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

A few comments.

1.


love2hunt said:


> So why am I not at all surprised that Don Peay is behind this bill?


It isn't surprising at all. This is the "shoot enough coyotes to get the deer herds to 400,000 head" bill. He said it was coming and here it is.

2.


stimmie78 said:


> This seems to be a way for the cattlemen to get sportsmen to pay for coyote control.





Fishrmn said:


> Cattlemen wanting the sportsmen to pay for a bounty on coyotes.


I would say sheepmen would be more interested than cattlemen, but point taken. I can't help but wonder though if bringing in the "poor, picked on farmer decimated by coyotes" is just a way to try and make this plan more palatable to the general public? SFW's interest is exclusively deer with this, but the Farm Bureau has been a bedmate with DP/SFW in each other's political moves in the past. (IE stream access)

3.


Treehugnhuntr said:


> Here's a question; At a meeting at Jordan commons about 15 months ago, Jim Karpowitz essentially said that wildlife services, who are responsible for control of coyotes in Utah (Through the division) stated that public hunters more or less don't have an impact on the way coyotes effect deer. In fact, I recall him saying that in some cases the public was detrimental to their objective. What exactly is the intent of this bill? Have they changed their mind? Is this really going to impact deer numbers? Do they have a projection on their desired achievements?


I would imagine if this passes, that the WB will dictate what the DWR will do regarding its coyote program, regardless of scientific findings.

4. Back to public opinion. The article makes it clear that the usual anti hunting groups are predictably lining up to oppose the bill, and if you read the comment section, hunters are getting pounded. As I predicted earlier when DP was presenting this at his "revival meetings", we hunters will lose the PR battle badly as this goes through the legislature. I do not believe this would be the case if the current DWR yote program continues, and this is what I favor.

5.


jahan said:


> Would that money be better spent on professionals?


I agree, and I'd like to see the program target specific units with low fawn survival, where evidence supports targeted control. (I know, that means having biologists make calls that some may disagree with) IMO, unleashing every underemployed rural citizen with a gun on the yotes will not give us the results we want or the PR leverage we need when more substantive issues come through the legislature and we hunters need public (nonhunter) support.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Catherder, you make some excellent points. We need to at least realize that people outside of the hunting community look at the killing of coyotes or any predators as a selfish move by hunters so they can kill more deer or elk. To be honest their is a lot of truth to this, but it can be done much more discretely and efficiently by professionals than by most average coyote hunters. Now I am not advocating that people should not hunt coyotes, I am just not sold on the bounties personally.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I better add this to the UWN anti list,,

1) Anti option 2
2) Anti antler restrictions
3) Anti SFW
4) Anti raising buck to doe ratio
5) Anti Deer tag reductions
6) Anti Expo
7) Anti conservation permits
8 ) Anti age objective for LE elk
9) Anti RACs & Wild life board
10) And the latest, Anti bountys on coyotes...

I'm sure I missed a few.. :lol:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I'm sure I missed a few.. :lol:


Anti Kool-aid?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm not anti bounty on coyotes. Its the manner in which it has been brought out and the bad wrap it will give hunters. We have a bounty now. Will killing every coyote help the problem? Probably not. Killing all the coyotes may add to the problem. They have their place. 

All out war on predators is not the answer to a balanced system. Why doesn't DP just put up his own money. How about funds from the expo tags?


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I think if hunters were more educated on how to properly hunt coyotes and learning how to take out the lead female like mentioned before, a difference could be made. Also, if there was more advertising towards hunters about bounties, there may be more interest. Most people have no clue that there's a bounty right now in Tooele County or where to take the the coyotes after they're killed for said bounty. I also think more contest may help get more people interested.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> I think if hunters were more educated on how to properly hunt coyotes and learning how to take out the lead female like mentioned before, a difference could be made. Also, if there was more advertising towards hunters about bounties, there may be more interest. Most people have no clue that there's a bounty right now in Tooele County or where to take the the coyotes after they're killed for said bounty. I also think more contest may help get more people interested.


From the link posted by wy2ut:


> Overall, these results suggest that while Utah's coyote bounty may provide an enhanced, subsidized recreation program for a small segment of Utah citizens, it is *unlikely* to have any beneficial effect on populations of livestock or big *game*.


At what point do we actually start learning from history? O|*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> I better add this to the UWN anti list,,
> 
> 1) Anti option 2 Because it is based on social issues instead of biology.
> 2) Anti antler restrictions Because they have been PROVEN to be ineffective in MULTIPLE states.
> ...


Being against policies that do NOT work is not foolish, what is foolish is supporting policies that do not work and divert precious resources from policies that DO work.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Are you guys saying that coyotes are not a problem or this is the wrong way to thin out the coyote population?


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

> by goofy elk » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:12 pm
> I better add this to the UWN anti list,,
> 
> 1) Anti option 2
> ...


Are you stalking me? It seems like you are reading my mind. Finally, someone who truly "gets" me... :mrgreen:

I'm not sure how I feel on the coyote thing or if I even have an opinion. You nailed it on #'s 1-9, though.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I see alot of you guys think its a bandaid to do coyote control. 

Its not a bandaid! Its essential! If you can't control coyotes you can't and wont have a deer herd! Its a fact! 1080 is proof coyote control worked to increase not only deer but rabbits, rodents, snakes ect. It only worked for the time it was implemented. So I see how it could be called a bandaid but imho your a tard if you can't see the effects of breaking a predator link out of the food chain can do to our game ! We ain't going to use 1080 again because we've been nutted but to deny killing coyotes wont help is asinine!

It should however be paid for by sportsman and cattleman or any other free grazer that uses national forest land.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here is what the coyotes are doing to Utah's deer herds...
Took these pictures a couple weeks ago. I can go out daily
and find scenes like this................[attachment=1:yipuwtd0]yote kill.jpg[/attachment:yipuwtd0]

The conditions right now are hard crusted snow.....
Yotes are having a hay day..[attachment=0:yipuwtd0]crusted snow.jpg[/attachment:yipuwtd0]

In recent coyote calling contest , the winners took 28 coyotes in 3 stands!

I've personally lion hunted/ snowmobiled all over Monroe/Beaver areas.
The sightings and coyote sign is alarming to say the very least...........

An all out war on coyotes is part of the puzzle that WILL HELP deer herds..


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> I see alot of you guys think its a bandaid to do coyote control.
> 
> Its not a bandaid! Its essential! If you can't control coyotes you can't and wont have a deer herd! Its a fact! 1080 is proof coyote control worked to increase not only deer but rabbits, rodents, snakes ect. It only worked for the time it was implemented. So I see how it could be called a bandaid but imho your a tard if you can't see the effects of breaking a predator link out of the food chain can do to our game ! We ain't going to use 1080 again because we've been nutted but to deny killing coyotes wont help is asinine!
> 
> It should however be paid for by sportsman and cattleman or any other free grazer that uses national forest land.


I like your thinking on the last part, but a kill'em all attitude is very self centered. Disease may take over. It could be what is having an effect now. (Disease that is.) Look at Moose numbers. Are coyotes killing all of them? Do we exterminate all predators in the name of having more deer for us to hunt? (I say no!) Do we need to manage them? Absolutely.

Again, I am not against killing coyotes. Just against extermination methods. Having everyone and there dog out hunting coyotes may be more detrimental and stressful to the deer than anything. Especially in the winter months.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > I better add this to the UWN anti list,,
> ...


Different combinations of ideas/assets from my 1-10 list can be implemented
on individual deer units ,,, and will have, good positive result on deer herds..IMHO.

I see all of these items as tools to help deer herds,,,I'm POSSITIVLY for there use.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

I went out chukar hunting a couple weeks ago and we saw no chukars but saw 5 coyotes in just a couple hours. There was an article in the Tooele paper last week where the local Biologist stated the Bighorn Sheep herd on the Stansburys is growning very slowly because of the coyotes killing the lambs and even a few adults. I read somewhere, for every coyote killed, 5-10 deer may have been saved. Also, if you guys are worried about the fee increase on your tag. It would only take one coyote to pay for that increase for the next 10-15 years with a $50.00 bounty or it would pay for your entire tag for the year. 
If a person shot several dogs in a year, you could also donate the money back into the coyote fund and get a tax deduction at the same time. :O•-:


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Does ADC still fly for coyotes?? I remember not too many years ago it was a common sight in the winter to see the local govt. trapper in his Korean war vintage helicopter out shotgunning coyotes. 50 dogs/day was fairly common using this method.....which I would guess is a seasons take in the same unit by the camo clad varmint callers. I'll bet it's been at least 10 years since I was last buzzed by the coyote copter when I've been out lion/bobcat hunting.

Anyway, flying for coyotes would be a more cost effective way to implement coyote control *AND* you could time the flights to correspond to the lead coyotes heat cycle for maximum effect. What's more, you can speciffically target those coyotes on the mule deer winter range that are doing the most damage. Afterall, killing coyotes wintering at 10,000 ft. living off of snowshoe rabbits and red pine squirrells, or the west desert dogs living off of mice and jackrabbits, will do little to improve mule deer numbers.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

There are two things I'm getting from this thread:

-Most are not in favor of the money being spent because of the method and the likelihood (or not) of it having an impact on deer numbers. Maybe it's an attempt to gain favor from this who might not know any better? Dunno. 

-Some favor artificially elevating game numbers by decimating predator populations. "decimating" being the best case scenario. Some don't. 

My personal view is that we need to be careful and not be so flamboyant about our collective desire to see coyote/predator genocide. Whether it be coyotes, bears, wolves or cats. This all comes back to what prices we are willing to pay and what prices we are willing to force other species to pay for the possibility of larger numbers of game to hunt and like it or not, we are a minority. I think some tact is in order. 

Goofy, yes, coyotes eat deer. And the moral of the story is? It seems you are very readily willing to shift focus from cats to coyotes. Why not offer a bounty on lions? It seems to me that with less effort the same thing could be achieved. Kill 20000 coyotes or 2000 cats. It'd probably cost less money too. Just thinking out loud. 300 bucks a cat? That's still less than 2/3 the cost. Hell, we could take the remaining 400k and translocate all of the deer from Bountiful to the empty clear cuts out past sheep rock mountain, implement 3 point or better, 45/100 buck to doe ratio and give out tags that are only available through the expo and banquet auctions. Of course there'd only be 4 tags available, but think Of how cool it would be to tell all of our out of state friends that we are from Utah, where they kill the biggest deer and elk in the world. :mrgreen: 

Think of what it would do to your handicap if you didn't have to worry about actually hunting? Seeing animals in magazines and at expos is way better. None of that pesky dirt, rain and snow. Sunburns? Yuck! Thing of the past. 

Wow, I got way off track. I'm out of breath. 

From what I've gathered, spending the money on aerial gunning on targeted regions and coyotes would be the more efficient use of funds. If course several thousand sportsmen wouldn't be singing the praises of certain people when they are standing in line at the bank........ Seems like it may be more about recognition than deer. I could be wrong.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> Are you guys saying that coyotes are not a problem or this is the wrong way to thin out the coyote population?


I take it you didn't bother reading the link wy2ut posted. That is too bad, because the best investment is in education! I don't know anyone who thinks coyotes have no effects on mule deer, but many of us actually look at results, repeated results, and see how terrible the ROI is. I have no doubt if every coyote was removed in Utah the deer population would increase...................for a short time. But, if the winter habitat remains the same as it is now, instead of seeing pictures like the ones posted by goofy, we would see pictures of dead deer that had starved to death, froze to death, LOWER fawn birth/survival rates, and FEWER overall deer.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Different combinations of ideas/assets from my 1-10 list can be implemented on individual deer units ,,, and will have, good positive result on deer herds..IMHO.
> 
> I see all of these items as tools to help deer herds,,,I'm POSSITIVLY for there use.


And I am positive that any 'tool' can work when applied properly, but that is NOT what is happening. Tools that are STRICTLY used to produce social desires will NOT benefit the deer herd. Antler restrictions, while a tool, will do NOTHING to help the overall health of a deer herd. In fact, study after study after study after study show more negatives results than positive results. But hey, why worry about verified results when we can use perceptions and flawed memories?



> I'm POSSITIVLY for there use.


I have read and reread this, and I can't for the life of me figure out what you were attempting to say/spell.......help me out.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

having grown up during the coyote wars in the 50 s and 60 s when any method of control was used including the use of 1040 and denning ( a few of you ole timers know what im talking about ) along with the fact the cougars were not listed as game animals requiring tags until i believe 1966 a simple look at the hayday for out deer herds was during that time so i firmly beleive that more strigant preditor control would not only benifit but is essential to help stabalize the herd. its not a cureall as there are many other factors such as winter range issues, poaching and desease to name only a few. but like it are not the mule deer is heading slowly but surely down the road to extinction it things we can control are discarded. there is a ole saying that the last creature on earth are going to by ****roachs and coyotes that is more than half true it if wasnt the 50 and 60s would have seen the eradication of coyotes on open range. so in short i would support a increase in bounty money on coyotes becouse though i may be wrong as a rat kissing a cat i feel that decreasing the overall coyote population would have a positive effect on the deer heards. along with more lion taqs, reseeding of winter ranges, agressive anti poaching legislature to name a few but to sit and do nothing is like play with a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse something bad is surely going to happen.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

having grown up during the coyote wars in the 50 s and 60 s when any method of control was used including the use of 1040 and denning ( a few of you ole timers know what im talking about ) along with the fact the cougars were not listed as game animals requiring tags until i believe 1966 a simple look at the hayday for out deer herds was during that time so i firmly beleive that more strigant preditor control would not only benifit but is essential to help stabalize the herd. its not a cureall as there are many other factors such as winter range issues, poaching and desease to name only a few. but like it are not the mule deer is heading slowly but surely down the road to extinction it things we can control are discarded. there is a ole saying that the last creature on earth are going to by ****roachs and coyotes that is more than half true it if wasnt the 50 and 60s would have seen the eradication of coyotes on open range. so in short i would support a increase in bounty money on coyotes becouse though i may be wrong as a rat kissing a cat i feel that decreasing the overall coyote population would have a positive effect on the deer heards. along with more lion taqs, reseeding of winter ranges, agressive anti poaching legislature to name a few but to sit and do nothing is like play with a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse something bad is surely going to happen.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well that took a whole couple of hours, since posting that picture of the yote kill
at 7:45am, the boys and I went out and took pictures of last nights yote lunch box..

I just took these pictures at 9:30,,,,,,less than two hours ago.

From across the canyon, spotted from the truck.
[attachment=1:2d0cb3gw]bt1.jpg[/attachment:2d0cb3gw]

The kill site..
[attachment=2:2d0cb3gw]ks1.jpg[/attachment:2d0cb3gw]

The dead deer..
[attachment=0:2d0cb3gw]dd1.jpg[/attachment:2d0cb3gw]

And Tree,
The going rate on a mountain lion is 4K+,,,,
Outfitters and guides have been plowing down lions BIGTIME since 1997..
How do you NOT get that?

Hell, the lion business is dying out because decent cats are gone!
There just finishing out the younger class lions now.......
The sport of being a hounds men will soon be history.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> ridgetop said:
> 
> 
> > Are you guys saying that coyotes are not a problem or this is the wrong way to thin out the coyote population?
> ...


Yes, I have read the report. Like I said before. More people need to be aware of these bounty programs and if there were more contests and advertisements about getting out and controlling coyotes, I'm guessing more people would get involved. Most people had no idea a bounty program was going on in 2000. I know I didn't. 
I know if the $50.00 per dog does go through, I'll be buying a "coyote" rifle and it will be going everywhere with me when I'm out away from town. I can promiss you that.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I thought I'd add my 2 cents on this one. We discussed this during the central RAC meeting earlier this week (sorry still typing up the summary and will post it this weekend).

In short the spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife service said a few interesting things. 

1 - Cattlemen prefer to take out coyotes in larger areas whereas the division likes to see them taken in more specific areas that are of more benefit to deer. This is an ongoing discussion between the two agencies.

2- Hunters and the FW Service typically kill different coyotes so both tools are important to helping with coyote control. Some coyotes are hunter educated, hunters will likely never kill them but can be taken from the air. Some coyotes hide under sage brush and hunting from the air misses coyotes that hunters may take.

3 - To have a serious long term impact on coyotes you must kill at least 70% of the population. Anything under that just causes them to go into breeding overdrive and as long as there is a substantial food source they will do just that.

4 - Targeting coyotes too early, say in January will not necessarily do much for a specific area. During this time coyotes are very territorial and take out dominant animals will only allow other animals to come into the area. Big picture though it doesn't hurt, just won't help a specific area.

5 - The key to limiting population growth, besides taking out 70% of the population, is to target coyotes between February and June. This is when they are breeding and taking care of young pups. Taking out adults will likely also result in the death of the pups.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks for the rac snippets of info Bull....interesting.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks Bullsnot, this is what I'm talking about. This kind of info. needs to get out to more hunters. I have personally reached out to a coyote hunter to help me out on a target area in the Stanburys. Between this guy and his partner, they have killed over 50 coyotes this year. He told me he wants to wait a few more weeks, so the coyotes are through breeding. That way we can do more damage to the overall population, which is my goal.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And Tree,
> The going rate on a mountain lion is 4K+,,,,
> Outfitters and guides have been plowing down lions BIGTIME since 1997..
> How do you NOT get that?
> ...


It was facetious sarcasm, how do you get.... nevermind. I'll write it in crayon and say a prayer next time. :mrgreen: 

Incentivizing cougar harvest would be plausible for a fraction of the cost and change the dynamics of the whole thing. Cat trapping? Ain't gonna have to pay 4k a pelt for that to be profitable. You think wildlife services would be against a few more bullets to put in cats while they're out after yotes? Again, this is only intended to point out your dissonant nature. Bad doggie, good kitty. Besides, a fair sized cougar bounty would put you completely out of business instead of partially.

Of course our communication is hindered by the introduction of reason.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Goofy, yes, coyotes eat deer. And the moral of the story is? It seems you are very readily willing to shift focus from cats to coyotes. Why not offer a bounty on lions? It seems to me that with less effort the same thing could be achieved. Kill 20000 coyotes or 2000 cats. It'd probably cost less money too. Just thinking out loud. 300 bucks a cat?


So , what part of this is " Facetious sarccsm" ?


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Goofy, yes, coyotes eat deer. And the moral of the story is? It seems you are very readily willing to shift focus from cats to coyotes. Why not offer a bounty on lions? It seems to me that with less effort the same thing could be achieved. Kill 20000 coyotes or 2000 cats. It'd probably cost less money too. Just thinking out loud. 300 bucks a cat?
> ...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > Treehugnhuntr said:
> ...


The United Wildlife Coop just lost all my respect......

I haven't slammed the UWC one time,,,,,,,,,,,But I just might in the future...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Here is an old thought or two on bounties, yotes and other critters in general...

http://www.knowhunting.com/article.html?id=57
.....................................................................................................

Do Coyote Bounty Programs Work?

Reprinted from a Dec 17, 2006 column in the Morgantown Dominion Post

"As a wildlife student at Pennsylvania State University in the early 1960's I learned that paying bounties to encourage hunters and trappers to harvest more predators just didn't work. Recently Preston County initiated a modest bounty program that would eliminate 45 coyotes. This program was initiated for the same reason all coyote control programs are initiated ... farmer losses of sheep, cattle, and other livestock..."

"...Bounties are not just offered to reduce predators. Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi offer a bounty for dead beavers. It is doubtful that these states followed through with such payments, but the bounty option is on the books. Heck, Pennsylvania passed a bill in 1955 to pay $1 for every dead rattlesnake and copperhead turned in. They also enacted a bounty of 50 cents for porcupines. The last activity on this dumb bounty was in 1972, so we don't have to worry about it.

Several states, or counties within states, offer a bounty for dead coyotes. South Dakota had a $5 bounty starting in 1939, but the last activity was 1998. However, they have a new bill being contemplated that would pay $20 for every coyote taken, statewide. Wyoming had a $20 bounty on coyotes and in one county they took 475 coyotes ($9500) in 2 months. Local farmers were happy. Virginia has a bounty that local counties can implement. Several counties in southwestern Virginia utilize the bounty including Pulaski County that offers $50 for all female adults taken.

In 2000 Utah introduced a coyote bounty program putting up $200,000 in response to farmer complaints. The conclusion of that bounty system was that "the program did not produce the desired results, in terms of either increasing hunter participation or reducing coyote populations."

The Department of Agriculture states that over 21,000 lambs and sheep were killed by coyotes in 2001 in the United States. There is no doubt that some Preston County farmers are suffering some losses. Obviously eliminating 45 coyotes will not impact coyotes or the domestic animal losses in Preston County. However, if hunters and trappers would focus on the farms where losses are occurring, then farmer losses would probably decrease. However, such control efforts would need to focus on individual coyotes and individual farms every year in order to prevent farmer losses. Random coyote removal will not impact the coyotes or sheep predation by coyotes.

The bounty system implemented in Preston County might serve to create publicity and cause more hunters to hunt coyotes once deer season is over. That might help farmers, but again, only if those hunters took coyotes on the farms suffering losses.

Studies in Utah show that "most harvesting of bountied coyotes was done by people seeking a positive outdoor experience" rather than making money. Thus, if a farmer is suffering some losses from coyotes, they will be better served to seek out coyotes hunters to come to their farm, rather than implement a bounty system that probably won't have much impact."


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="goofy elk":3cnt9oim]
> ...


The United Wildlife Coop just lost all my respect......

I haven't slammed the UWC one time,,,,,,,,,,,But I just might in the future...[/quote:3cnt9oim]

goofy, you are completely missing my intent here. If you need to take it personal, there's nothing I can do to stop that. You and I have gone back and forth for years and now all of the sudden you're taking your ball and going home? Sending vulgar PMs to me is ok, but not this?

Are you that serious that you can't laugh a bit? Geeze, man. Lighten up.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> The United Wildlife Coop just lost all my respect......
> 
> I haven't slammed the UWC one time,,,,,,,,,,,But I just might in the future...


It is my opinion that bad mouthing any group (be it SFW, MDF, DWR, UWC, etc.) doesn't always have the desired effect that is intended by the bad mouther. In most cases they consider who is spewing out the insults, their intelligence level, and typically side with the side that is being bad mouthed. If Goofy wants to bad mouth let him, probably would bring a few more into the fold. Oh and Goofy, no need to PM the insults/threats again. You can keep them in the open. :roll:


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Sending vulgar PMs to me is ok, but not this?
> 
> Are you that serious that you can't laugh a bit? Geeze, man. Lighten up.


I thought I was special, I now see it is more of a widespread thing. I'm jealous.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> goofy, you are completely missing my intent here. If you need to take it personal, there's nothing I can do to stop that. You and I have gone back and forth for years and now all of the sudden you're taking your ball and going home? Sending vulgar PMs to me is ok, but not this?
> 
> Are you that serious that you can't laugh a bit? Geeze, man. Lighten up.


I was thinking along the same lines. Goofy can send PM's laced with hints of violence, flat out threats of violence, spreading LIES, and generally acting like a 2nd grader who has repeatedly been slapped silly. If he were any kind of a man, he would make the threats/lies out in the open. And then, to get all butt hurt over obvious humor, WTF?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Okay, back on topic for me.

I think it would be great if there were more coyotes taken by new hunters. I just don't think we will get the desired result, just my opinion. Like I said before, I'm okay with paying a little more in my tag fee if it went directly to the DWR coyote control fund as I already know they know what to do. I mean I already send extra funds anyway for that purpose.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Even though it got a little crazy of late, I have been thinking about this thread (and the wolf one) all day through a busy work day and a worsening head cold. Overall, it has been a fairly good discussion. I think this point can be concluded.

1. Although we disagree about how to do it, and to what extent, most of us do accept the utility of at least some selective predator control. The disagreement is how to do it and if it is selective or "all out", and what methods are to be used.

With that in mind, what is the problem with this proposed legislation? Would it help the herd? Probably some, Would it help a few sheepmen? maybe. Would it be spending our money most efficiently in addressing the deer population problem? I have my doubts, but that can be debated a lot. So what is the problem?

It has been discussed before, but I still feel public perception is by far the biggest worry I have with this. We talked about that a few pages back, and I don't need to blather on more now. However, we have a big political and possibly judicial battle coming. I do believe it is imperative that the state has the ability to manage the *wolves* that will be inevitably coming. As it now stands, if I'm not mistaken, the state can manage them East of I-15 and North of I-80 to their intersection. I do believe it is imperative that the state have the ability to manage them in the entire state. If we have this, the DWR can hopefully manage their population enough to allow us to have reasonable game populations, limited livestock damage, yet have enough around to keep the pro wolf people happy or foil their lawsuits if they aren't. I'd rather see legislators working on this instead of stuff like yote extermination. The problem is if the *public* views hunters as selfish, and not caring about the ecosystem and nongame animals, or worse, as a bunch of bloodthirsty villains, we may fail epically in getting what we need with wolves and winning other bigger fights coming up that are more important for us to win. Winning political battles isn't like getting a proposed hunting or fishing reg through a RAC. It requires at least the approval, if not overt support of a large percentage of nonhunters to pass. At the end of the day, that is why DP's yote bill worries me.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I agree with most of what you are saying Catherder. The wolf thing is a whole other ball of wax as it pertains to wildlife management. As for the proposed bill pushed by DP, I have huge doubts it will do much of anything but stroke his e.. Nevermind......


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

horsesma said:


> All out war on predators is not the answer to a balanced system.


You call it an all out war on predators. So do you call the elk hunt an all out war on elk or the deer hunt?

Balanced system? What does that mean? Creating a homeostatic system is not the objective or at least I hope it isn't. If it is Mother Nature can do that for us with out any input. I thought the goal was to facilitate big game herds so the "average Joe" could go hunt every yr with a reasonable expectation to harvest a critter. You know the "family hunt". Don't look now but the very act of hunting and harvesting has an almost identical effect on game as predation. With the only real differences being humans tend not to target the sick and the young. But when you have predator populations at or near capacity. Its not only the sick old and young that are targeted, they all are.

So if we are to allow predators to take there full share of the pie what kind of slice are humans left with? A slice that is conservative enough to allow for the unexpected and unpredictable like weather or disease. Just as it is obvious to look at hunter control it is pertinent to look at predator control. As it is today could there be more cougar? Could there be more coyote? A lot more? Is it possible to double the predator populations? I don't think so. I think they are at or near capacity. Which is a bass akward way to manage for the "average Joe's" hunt. When the predators start paying for the deer and elk they kill I will give them more consideration. But till then we are the ones footing the bill for the whole management program.

I just wanted to add that coyote population benefit form the presence of apex predators such as cougar. Since the coyote is the ultimate opportunist and scavenges the staggering amount biomass left to rot when it become unpalatable to superior predators. :mrgreen:


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Predators don't care if they take a doe a fawn a mature buck. When they are taking does and fawns that is what is hurting the population. We as hunters are the supreme management tool. We can be selective and take just bucks or take does when needed. That is what management is.

Again I say go shoot coyotes there is no limit. Shoot as many as you want. Just don't bring so much attention to it. But as to what Catherder spoke of. Public perception is huge.They think we as hunters are being selfish. When it comes to all out war on predators are we not being selfish? Are we doing it just so we can have more deer to hunt? (YES!)

More tact is involved in this situation. Let the pro's handle it. If you and any concerned hunter wants to go annihilate coyotes that's great. Don't take it to the powers that be(GOV.) and shout it out.( "We as hunters are selfish!")We want all predators dead because they eat our deer, and we are the only ones who care about them.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> > Sending vulgar PMs to me is ok, but not this?
> ...


Nope you're not special.(well maybe) I've gotten a few from him as of late. Maybe he should take his ball and go home.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear, I appreciate your last post, as it gave me pause on where I stand. Here is my response, I am fine with predator control, but not with an attempt to eliminate all, or even most, predators. I also do not believe bounties work, at least not as they are intended to. Thinking the general public will not take issue with policies that call for the removal of predators is missing the boat by a mile. As a livestock owner that has just started the calving season, I would love to have EVERY coyote on my property dead, but that is not reality. So, instead I look for balance. How we get that balance is the golden question, but based on mountains of data, studies, history, I don't see bounties and a $5.00 increase for a deer permit as viable long term solutions. In fact, I don't see them as short term solutions either. I assert these, well intended, but deeply flawed policies will do more harm than good. Resources that would be better spent elsewhere will be wasted on coyote bounties, the general public will get an even worse picture of what 'sportsmen' look like, and it will delay real biologically based solutions from being implemented. Of course, this is all merely my opinion.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

martymcfly73 said:


> JuddCT said:
> 
> 
> > Treehugnhuntr said:
> ...


I am so special, I received a really nice one today....... :mrgreen:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Goofy, you are the king of twisting statements. I have not and I don't believe any one on here has said that we should not kill coyotes. My point to this whole thread was that maybe the money they are talking about spending on bounties would be better used by professionals who are more efficient at killing yotes. I hope hunters still go out and try and kill as many as they can, but it has been proven bounties don't make enough of a difference. I guess it is more bang for your buck type thing for me. 

One last time, Coyotes do affect deer along with any other predator. We are just arguing about the ways to take care of them.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

jahan said:


> Goofy, you are the king of twisting statements. I have not and I don't believe any one on here has said that we should not kill coyotes. My point to this whole thread was that maybe the money they are talking about spending on bounties would be better used by professionals who are more efficient at killing yotes. I hope hunters still go out and try and kill as many as they can, but it has been proven bounties don't make enough of a difference. I guess it is more bang for your buck type thing for me.
> 
> One last time, Coyotes do affect deer along with any other predator. We are just arguing about the ways to take care of them.


Amen!!!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I am all for coyote control to help deer...I do believe that coyotes are having a negative impact and reducing coyote predation on deer should help. BUT, instead of coming up with some bounty that won't help anything, take that $5 per license and give that money to wildlife services and let them kill the coyotes during the right time so that the money will actually do what it is intended....


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> horsesma said:
> 
> 
> > All out war on predators is not the answer to a balanced system.
> ...


Excellent post...I thought I would quote it as I think everyone needs to really read what Iron Bear is saying here.

Also, (maybe this has been addressed) the proposed fees are not ONLY for statewide bounties. To my understanding this money is to be used to increase PROFESSIONAL killing as well. I think offering a statewide bounty at $50 per dog is a small fee. Really that isn't much when you consider what we pay to actually spend a day out hunting. I blow through $50 just getting out of bed in the morning. However, this is a project that requires not only the publics help, but the added help of more professionals.

On the lands that I hunt the state trappers are hardly even making a dent on the coyote populations. They don't have enough help, resources, etc...which requires more money. The way I see it is the public bounties are just a small part of a bigger war.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

bwhntr said:


> Excellent post...I thought I would quote it as I think everyone needs to really read what Iron Bear is saying here.
> 
> Also, (maybe this has been addressed) the proposed fees are not ONLY for statewide bounties. To my understanding this money is to be used to increase PROFESSIONAL killing as well. I think offering a statewide bounty at $50 per dog is a small fee. Really that isn't much when you consider what we pay to actually spend a day out hunting. I blow through $50 just getting out of bed in the morning. However, this is a project that requires not only the publics help, but the added help of more professionals.
> 
> On the lands that I hunt the state trappers are hardly even making a dent on the coyote populations. They don't have enough help, resources, etc...which requires more money. The way I see it is the public bounties are just a small part of a bigger war.


Here is the way I look at it:

*What is my ROI towards the public bounty?* Maybe if the bounty was only given out during the specific time frame as defined by the biologists for a specific area that would most benefit mule deer I could see a higher ROI. However, would that lead to more yote hunters in a specific area spooking them and eventually less would be taken as a result?

*What is the ROI of having the professionals do it?* I just see this as a bigger return as there would be checks/balances to ensure it is done properly and in specific units where it is hurting deer the most (also at the right time). Maybe some of the better dog hunters should be able to apply to the DWR and go out to a defined area that needs the help and get compensated for it (I don't know how they would determine this, but just a thought).


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I had a long post typed on balance but I'll make it short. I think we are over complicating the issue a bit. 

As long as we are not wiping out a species and we are considering all user groups rather than just the biggest then some balance is established in our management practices. 80,000 deer hunters should never be able to tell 500 cougar hunters that they have to take their ball and go home because they want to wipe out cats for the sake of deer herds. However the larger group should have the scale tipped a bit in their favor as we apply throttle to what that balance looks like from a game population perspective in that if cougar populations are having large impact on a deer herd then cougar populations would be reduced enough to make that impact minimal. I think that is about as "balanced" as it can ever be.

Balance for Utah wildlife is a perception that exists at the individual level and has nothing to do with the balance mother nature would apply. It will be impossible to create balance in everyone's eyes and it will be impossible to manage to mother natures standards. Balance is simply a man made social issue and one that will always be in debate but the only solution that makes sense is to consider all users and much more progress would be made if we could do that at the individual level.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> I had a long post typed on balance but I'll make it short. I think we are over complicating the issue a bit.
> 
> As long as we are not wiping out a species and we are considering all user groups rather than just the biggest then some balance is established in our management practices. 80,000 deer hunters should never be able to tell 500 cougar hunters that they have to take their ball and go home because they want to wipe out cats for the sake of deer herds. However the larger group should have the scale tipped a bit in their favor as we apply throttle to what that balance looks like from a game population perspective in that if cougar populations are having large impact on a deer herd then cougar populations would be reduced enough to make that impact minimal. I think that is about as "balanced" as it can ever be.
> 
> Balance for Utah wildlife is a perception that exists at the individual level and has nothing to do with the balance mother nature would apply. It will be impossible to create balance in everyone's eyes and it will be impossible to manage to mother natures standards. Balance is simply a man made social issue and one that will always be in debate but the only solution that makes sense is to consider all users and much more progress would be made if we could do that at the individual level.


Agreed! But, do we as hunters need to take this to legislature or can we keep it on the down low.
We are just putting the spotlight on hunters. In what I believe is a bad light. Take it to the RAC's, W.B. and get the money allocated. There is money in the coffers right now is there not?

I'm not against the bounty or the taking of coyotes just the manner in which they are going after the funds. I believe there are other avenues.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

bullsnot said:


> Balance is simply a man made social issue and one that will always be in debate but the only solution that makes sense is to consider all users and much more progress would be made if we could do that at the individual level.


I like what you said. It should be noted in this discussion that the *biggest* wildlife user by numbers now is not hunters/anglers, but the so called "non consumptive" users. (hikers, birdwatchers, general nature lovers, etc.) Enacting legislation with the declared goal to "decimate" the yote population with a great deal of fanfare and cost is going to be unpopular with the biggest user bloc out there. It certainly can be argued to be, at minimum, "unbalanced".



horsesma said:


> But, do we as hunters need to take this to legislature or can we keep it on the down low.
> We are just putting the spotlight on hunters. In what I believe is a bad light. Take it to the RAC's, W.B. and get the money allocated. There is money in the coffers right now is there not?


I do think we would still need legislative approval, but a simple allocation to the "wildlife services" budget would accomplish what we want, insure DWR oversight, and hopefully, lead to some biologist input to where and when the yote control is taking place. Finally, I think the general public would not react as negatively to such a program, compared to what is currently being considered.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I want to know what DP plans on doing when this tactic doesn't work? Which it isn't! After he's eliminated all coyotes then what eliminate all the cougars? Thats already getting pretty close. Then what the bears. Where does it stop. He's trying to play god here and its going to bite him in the arse. 
Now I hunt coyotes alot and I do not want bounties on them, I like the way it is now. If I wanted to make money off doing it I could always trade the pelts in.
Sorry about the rant but I would rather hunt coyotes than deer anyday of the week, and what DP is suggesting is to take away what I like to do for what he likes. 
And goofy you should be against this, as much as you hate when they blame the cougar for the deer herds decline. Cougars kill more deer than coyotes do.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

Coyotes can be hunted year round without a license and without a limit. So why doesn't SFW just hire several coyote hunters and send them out to kill all they can?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Well Mikevanwilder. Maybe there should be a $2000 dollar coyote hunting license to offset the lost revenue that coyote predation creates for Deer Rabbit Turkey Pheasant Grouse and Antelope hunting. And livestock losses also. When you consider all the revenue created from clothing to bullets to gas is a ton of money. Pretty big price to pay so a few hundred guys can have abundant coyote hunting.  

I say the same to the cougar guy's.

Getting pretty close to eliminating cougar and coyote. Give me a break.

We could have a statewide population of 50 cougar and only Goofy would be the wiser.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Well Mikevanwilder. Maybe there should be a $2000 dollar coyote hunting license to offset the lost revenue that coyote predation creates for Deer Rabbit Turkey Pheasant Grouse and Antelope hunting. And livestock losses also. When you consider all the revenue created from clothing to bullets to gas is a ton of money. Pretty big price to pay so a few hundred guys can have abundant coyote hunting.
> 
> I say the same to the cougar guy's.
> 
> ...


I hate to admit it, but I once had a similar view in regards to predators. I am glad to say I no longer have such views. Why do deer/rabbits/turkeys/pheasant(non-native species!)/antelope have more 'rights' to exist than coyotes/bobcats/bear/cougars/wolves? Didn't the same Creator create all of them? Are we, as sportsmen, supposed to be stewards of ALL creatures? Or, are we 'entitled' to suppress certain species so that we have an easier time putting a 'trophy' buck/bull/ram on the wall?

We should be striving for balance, not a heavily tilted scale. And to imply that those who prefer hunting, or merely watching/photographing, predators is somehow selfish, is absurd. IMHO!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> If only Goofy would be wiser.


There, I edited it for you.....

:O•-: :mrgreen:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Longfeather said:


> Coyotes can be hunted year round without a license and without a limit. So why doesn't SFW just hire several coyote hunters and send them out to kill all they can?


Touche!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Because deer are better for our rural economies then predators.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder if we continue on the track we have been on the last 30yrs if the DWR will have to go though RIF and budget cuts. So all non huntable species can thrive as well as huntable species.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

And where do livestock fit in this world of all critters having the right to thrive?

Do cattle and Elk not compete for the same forage? 

Sheep and anything else. 

I'm not calling for eradication of any species. But the Coyote guys want maximum yotes cougar guys want maximum lions. But maximum predator populations are not conducive to maximum game hunting. I'm glad there are places like Yellowstone ect but I just don't want Monroe managed as such.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Longfeather said:


> Coyotes can be hunted year round without a license and without a limit. So why doesn't SFW just hire several coyote hunters and send them out to kill all they can?


The road you are headed down generally is a discussion centered around getting the "best bang for your buck".

First off the US Fish and Wildlife service is typically who the DWR contracts with to kill coyotes professionally and the cost is typically about $200 per coyote taken. So with a budget of $400k I can kill expect to kill 2000 coyotes. But there is more to the story.

Killing coyotes to benefit deer is not as simple as going out and starting to kill coyotes. If my budget only allows me to kill 2,000 coyotes then I want to target the 2,000 animals that will give me the BEST payoff for deer. That means I need to know which areas coyotes are having the biggest impact. Those are typically areas that coyotes are hammering deer in fawning areas. The division has the best knowledge of these kinds of areas, they know what time of year to take the coyotes (taking out mom and dad means pups also do not survive if done at the right time and can also prevent breeding from taking place), and the division knows the topography of these areas and where the coyotes typically hang out in these areas.

If someone else were to start doing this they would have a long learning curve to understand which coyotes to take and when to take them. Anybody serious about coyote control would simply write a check to the division earmarked for coyote control.

Placing a bounty on coyotes will have a much smaller impact. For the same $200 I can kill 4 coyotes but if those coyotes are taken in the wrong area then they are almost worthless to anybody but ranchers. If they are taken in the right area but at the wrong time of year then new coyotes will move into the territory and will breed at a higher rate since they have less competition for the same food source.

I'm not saying bounties are bad and hunters killing coyotes is completely worthless but any organization serious about coyote control would simply give money to the division coyote control prgorma and let the professionals that know Utah best kill more coyotes in the right areas and the right time. Perhaps its not really about coyotes and it's more about grandstanding?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm not calling for eradication of any species. But the Coyote guys want maximum yotes cougar guys want maximum lions. But maximum predator populations are not conducive to maximum game hunting. I'm glad there are places like Yellowstone ect but I just don't want Monroe managed as such.


IB I get your point. The questions you ask are tough to answer but I will say this, in a balanced situation when you consider all users I don't think managing for max predators is the answer. That's not reasonable, but then again neither is deer hunters wanting predators completely gone. Clearly the answer is somewhere in between those two points.

AGAIN Utah is tying predation by cats and coyotes to deer mortality by collaring does. This is groundbreaking stuff! By doing this we can drive our predator management plan based on these numbers. These plans do not ever call for eradcation, just reduction of predators until deer mortality improves. Cougar management plans are tied to adult deer mortality and coyote management plans are tied to fawn mortality.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Bullsnot, have you worked around or with the state trappers much? The reason I ask is because all the interaction I have had with them does not give me much of a reassurance. Reading your post there is some real science being put into the control of coyotes. My experience is they do some aerials and take out as many as possible from the air. They set some traps and hope to catch a few, which it seems they don't trap many. I know of poison being set out and I don't know how effective that has been. 

Really how effective are the state trappers? I think they are under staffed and under budgeted. Aerial killings seem to be the most effective and that has nothing to do with science and selecting breeding pairs. Help me out a little with what you know.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

[/url]


Iron Bear said:


> Getting pretty close to eliminating cougar and coyote. Give me a break.
> 
> We could have a statewide population of 50 cougar and only Goofy would be the wiser.


OK ,, lets just sick to the actual FACTS here about mountain lions..
It is, and has been 100% mandatory reporting on lions for 20+ years.
The DWR has solid numbers on mountain lions,,,per this annual report.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/cougar/pdf/10_ ... report.pdf

Mountain lion harvest + morality peaked in 1997, @ 666 cats..
over the next 2 years the H/M dropped to 387 in 1999...
This was specific to Harvest objective hunting taking a huge toll.

The H/M numbers slightly increased over the next few years to 2004,
That year the harvest + mortality was 523 mountain lions..

Since that time, HO hunting has been increased every year, 3/4 of
the state is now open to some type of HO hunting for lions.
Over the counter, unlimited permits available.

From 2004 to 2010 the harvest and mortality numbers hovered in the 300's.
2010/11 was 304 cats............

SO FAR 2011/12, as of today stands at 165 cats HM, state wide total....
There will be a bump up in harvest when split season opens to ho hunting
March 5th, ........But I seriously doubt we will see the numbers brake out
of the 200s for TOTAL cats killed for 2012...........

Note: The harvest + mortality numbers include all hunting + all other mortality..
And these HM numbers continue to drop despite more opportunity......

you guys that say you believe in 'trends',,,,,,Look at these #'s in the report...
+ average age of lions has constantly dropped as well........Just say'in..


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Cougar and Deer populations theoretically should trend together. I believe you when you say there are less cougar then you can remember. That stands to reason there are less deer than anyone can remember. I have told you this before the answer to more cougar is more deer. I could care less if there were 10,000 cougar in Utah. But we better have 2 million deer to facilitate hunters needs and allow for 500,000 deer to be eaten by cats. But 1 cougar is to many if you only have 100 deer. I have also told houndsman the never ending desire and management for maximum big toms will some day lead to the demise of there pass time. Ironically houndsman could be the hero's of Utah's deer hunting but instead have served as a major contributor to its decline. 

Just sayin.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I have never said mountain lions don't kill deer OR not effect their population..

What I HAVE said is lion numbers have been declining since 1997....
& Lions were deer numbers are low and elk are present, lions simply live on elk.
& Over the past few years , I've scene a dramatic increase in coyotes, AND
deer kills related to coyotes................

I feel like the coyote bounty is a good thing, along with the wildlife services & DWR
taking steps to control coyotes.........It ALL helps.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

As a very wise friend of mine stated a few years back; "We need to manage wildlife *with* hunters, instead of managing wildlife *for* hunters!"

Managing predators numbers with the above quote is how balance can/should be achieved. Any policy that either point blank calls for the eradication of any predator, or the near eradication of them, whether it be coyotes/wolves/cougars/foxes, is a recipe for backlash from the public, as well as a high probability of further dividing the hunting population.


----------



## Longfeather (Nov 27, 2007)

[quote="bullsnot Perhaps its not really about coyotes and it's more about grandstanding?[/quote]

SFW could work with the UDWR to sponsor coyote hunting contests, hire coyote hunters to hunt during the specific time and period that would do the best, they could work with the UDWR instead of against them etc... So it must be Grandstanding and politics that are the motive or a recruitment drive. It seems that the predator issue is a tool instead of the reason.


----------

