|
Post by BK on Mar 9, 2004 16:49:46 GMT -6
Canines are not my passion, they could be if I lived somewhere different,.........but I trap a few every season and some years have made them my target. One thing I have noticed over the years is when they are thick their IQ seems to drop by 75%. I'm not just talking fox but coyotes too. I often wonder if this dosen't lead to much of the controvesy, we have in regard to methods and so on? One may never know,.......but I do know dogs act different when there are a few around. Perhaps it's greed? Or they all just walk around with an attitude?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 9, 2004 20:15:56 GMT -6
So the question on the table is- do coyotes change temprement depending on population?
If over crowded where populations are at saturation points or beyond- I am sure it does.
But if you meant populations consistent with adequate territory- In my limited experience I'd say no.
That is- I don't see much difference in the actions in the fall with a maximum population compared to spring where the population is at its lowest.
|
|
|
Post by BK on Mar 9, 2004 20:34:17 GMT -6
Trappnman ,I had the chance to trap fox twice where I had fox on fox so to speak, and coyotes where they seemed to be behind every hill. While it stands to reason one would catch more(and I did) they fell for some silly stuff.......... In years with low populations I know they wouldn't have given me a second look. on some of the stuff they fell for.
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 9, 2004 22:22:34 GMT -6
Maybe the population density, triggered excessive competition. I am sure that was a good deal of the reason for my success in NH. I attributed to dumb animals, but anyone could score big in the area I was in.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2004 7:01:00 GMT -6
My thought on fox is this- if they are there- they are easy to trap. Whether 1 lives there or 20 live there. I say this for 2 reasons 1) thats what the big numbers fox men tell me 2) I find that here, with my lower numbers, that I usually caught the fox I catch in the first night or two I set up the farm. Many, many times I have taken a fox in nights 1 and 2 on a farm- and thing all right- I'm in a fox pocket- then nothing for 4-6 weeks until I pull. Seems like I caught the residents and no more moved in. Occasionaly, I catch one in a set where it has sat for a while, but these are in the minority.
Now I would assume in super densities that the populations act different. Tests in a multitude of animals shows this. But I am also going to assume that a super population of animals means super conditions and habitat- as in the SE PA and Maryland area.
And super habitat means that animals can have smaller territories After all, territories are created to have food and shelter- the more abundant these things are, the smaller the territories are. Many eastern coyote studies confirm this.
But back to my original point- I don't find fox in a low population area to be particularly difficult to catch. The seem to work a set in a normal, red fox manner.
So lets look at coyotes- is 1 animal in a territory harder to catch than lots of animals in territory?
I'm thinking- all things being equal- that it probably doesn't make much of a difference.
Now- by all things being equal I maen this- yes, if you take 5 of the 6 coyotes in an area- that last coyote might be tough to take.
But on a fresh population (that is, no previous trapping or not for a season) I don't think this individual is harder to take.
Consider this- In fur trapping- you are targetting groups- ie YOY, last years hangerons, adults, travelers. You take what you get.
But for control work or off season work- you ARE targeting low populations. Maybe a mated pair, a batchlor.
So location becomes key- with fewer animals moving- you need to go to them rather than have them come to you.
And once located- I found these coyotes to be no harder to trap than fall coyotes (high population). In fact, in one aspect, I found them easier. Doesn't seem to be as much messing around at sets- digging, snapped traps, unnecesary remakes were rare- you either had an untouched set or a coyote.
|
|
|
Post by a1foxhopper on Mar 10, 2004 8:23:34 GMT -6
Sorry trappnman but I got to agree with BK on this one. My area has had low populations of fox for a few years now and they are just plain hard to catch. They just seem to be much more cautios and spooky. Even though I think I have better lures and techniques than ten years ago some will walk right by or circle and show little interest. Especially dirtholes. Now I catch alot of them in scent post and flat sets but dirtholes they just don't seem interested. It may seem that I am trapping educated fox but to my knowlege I am the only one trapping in the area. In high population years a dirthole seemed to be the only set I needed to make. It almost was like they were competing with each other to check out what is in the hole. Just my opinion and observations and there coulld be other reasons that I am not thinking about. Could be I just stink worse than I used to!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2004 8:31:48 GMT -6
I should add- I never make regular dirtholes- either flat sets or stepdowns.
|
|
|
Post by CoonDuke on Mar 10, 2004 8:46:58 GMT -6
I have heard on more than one occasion that eastern fox in low populations and high competition are harder to trap than western coyotes in high populations.
I never trapped western coyotes so I don't know first hand...LOL. Maybe someday. ;D
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2004 9:16:34 GMT -6
Yes- in high populaton areas- non specific animals are easier to trap-
but the ONE animal on a location- is HE harder to trap? Or just harder to locate?
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 10, 2004 9:23:10 GMT -6
I think harder to trap and harder to locate. As I said before, several animalks on a location, have to compete for the same available food. Therefore, they are covering more territory than the single animal in a location. The need to feed first and before the others, keeps those animals moving and more apt to charge in to a set, the single animal can be picky about where and when he decides to eat. As far as locating, you have to find the travel route of one animal. When there are several animals in one location, most folks can find at least some of the sign there.
|
|
|
Post by CoonDuke on Mar 10, 2004 9:40:33 GMT -6
I never trapped anywhere but my home area so it is hard for me to make a educated decision on that.
I know on a few occasions I have trapped specific foxes that I knew were in the area. They might have taken a little longer, but I didn't have to do any special tricks or sets.
I think the overlying question is that if the overall population is easier to trap in high pops. Ignoring sets less or working sets harder, etc.
Say there is a similar location in two different areas. One is in low pop, other is in high. The first location has a fox come by once every three nights. The second has 3 foxes come by per night. Now, it stands to reason that the second location has a greater chance of catching a fox. But, will the first fox that comes through in the low pop location be caught the first time? How about the first fox that comes through in the high pop area? Does high populations make each individual fox more prone to work a set due to increased competition?
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 10, 2004 10:32:59 GMT -6
I am thinking yes, based on my experiences only.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2004 10:53:28 GMT -6
[/size][/b]
Thats the question.
Heres another...LOL.... are "high" populations abnormal populations...or "normal" for that area.
In areas where there are a lot of fox- you really don't have a high population in the accepted sense- you just have a normal population- of a higher density than Mn- but normal for that area.
Now- normal means normal (bare with me)... allow me to define "normal" as the number of fox that range can hold comfortably on a yearly basis. Agreed?
Therefore- range that can support a more dense population year after year- MUST have the resources to allow it- that is - competition among SHOULD be no more intense than on marginal range that can support only a few fox.
As you said CD, when you targeted speciifc fox- the same methods, lures, etc worked- it just took a little longer (harder to pinpoint?) And DJ you bring out a good point- in a densely populated area- you don't know how many target animals might be passing your set. Lets say, to stretch a point- that 50% of a population are "spooky". So in high populations- doesn't matter if 5 out of 10 that pass by- pass by- you have a significant number in that other 50%.
Now in a low population area- your potential "nonspooky" animals drops down considerably. Thus your success rates drop.
________________________________________
So really the question has become- " does increased (abnormal) competition for food and survival make canines easier to trap?"
Logically, one would have to agree.
But- always a but- this is an apple and orange thing- abnormal, if you accepted my arguement- is not synonomous with dense populations-
So- to redefine the issue- " is low density population trapping more difficult PER ANIMAL then in high density populations?"
One thing I have noticed over the years is when they are thick their IQ seems to drop by 75%. I'm not just talking fox but coyotes too.
Or are you just % catching the same?
Say there are 100 coyotes in your county- and you caught 20% of them- 20 yotes GOOD year. Next season, mange- only 20 coyotes in county. You take 20%- 4 coyotes- BAD year...
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by musher on Mar 10, 2004 11:06:04 GMT -6
My experience with fox seems to mirror tmans. I usually catch the fox living on its territory in a hurry. Then the set is dead until another fox moves in.
When the population is high there is greater dispersal and less food to go around. That makes them even easier to catch and it takes longer for a set to go dead because new fox come into unoccupied territory more quickly.
My non-bilogist thoughts with regards to habitat: The fat, healthy fox vixen produces more eggs therefore more young. The vixen must be fat and health during the WINTER months prior to breeding. If the food situation changes the following summer the pups are already out and about. They will just disperse more looking for new territory/food.
Due to logging and defoliation agents (round-up on natural gas lines) I have seen habitat go from excellent to poor in a matter of weeks. It can make for some hungry, inexperienced pups.
|
|
|
Post by CoonDuke on Mar 10, 2004 11:41:45 GMT -6
I think a question that needs to be answered first before we get into other things is what causes high and low populations?
Habitat? Prey habitat? Disease? General food availability? Peferred food availability? Competition?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2004 12:21:14 GMT -6
Tangent Duke-
Habitat? Prey habitat? Disease? General food availability? Peferred food availability? Competition?
Mushers point about sudden changes in habitat are true- in fact, it happens every year here with harvest.
So we are at the chicken and egg point (see Tdunn- there was a reason I asked LOL) Does habitat come first or does population come first?
As a given- lets say the population is at a " dense" population for a minimum of a 5 year period. This eliminates 1 year flukes in populations.
So- habitat must be the first key. You need habitat to grow into. Good habitat consists of many things- foremost food and shelter. Food during all seasons- meaning multiple food sources- both prey and otherwise. Shelter from weather, predators, for denning.
Good habitat has an abundance of these things. Bad habitat does not.
Studies have shown that home range contracts and expands in size based on the makeup of that territory- lush habitat areas support a higher population BECAUSE there is more of everything. A mated pair might only need a few acres (relatively speaking) to mate, live, raise pups, etc. in lush habitat areas.
Conversely, poor habitat can only support a limited population- and the total area to provide all needed things might be 10, 20 30 times bigger that what is needed in easy living areas.
Preferred food vs. general food. Is there a food that will increase the population? In other words- if mice are the #1 preferred food- will an area loaded with mice produce more fox than an area loaded iwith other food? Maybe. I am assuming some foods are higher in certain vitamins, nutrients- and that can affect populatiuon and mortality.
But most studies show food varies considerablly during the year. A coyotes primary food for example often changes with the seasons-
Winter- big game, carrion Summer- grains, fruits, insects Fall- small mammals
Lots of overlap of course.
Disease of course is a factor- or rather, lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by CoonDuke on Mar 10, 2004 13:01:09 GMT -6
I have a personal theory that fox are more dependant on mouse populations than coyotes. My area should be crawling with fox. Fencerows, hollows, fields, available water, the whole works. Lots of broken cover. I believe "clean farming" and the elimination of hay production from many farms keep the fox pops low. Fox can't utilize deer and large mammals like groundhogs like coyotes can. The old timers tell me there were a lot more fox around years ago. Mange hit and killed them back. Farming practices changed and could never rebound. Coyotes keeping pops down in other areas so not a lot of "immigrants" coming in. How many of the Amish farms is SE PA do you think are still growing hay?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 10, 2004 13:12:48 GMT -6
I would think a lot would have hay> Are you saying they don't? How can you farm like they do without hay?
Tomorrow i'll try to find some fox studies ie food preference, etc You could be right on fox/mice. I've certainly watched a few fox mouse over the years.
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 10, 2004 13:21:20 GMT -6
I am not sure about HayDukes area, but this area has a pretty decent production of hay each year. Many, many farms produce more hay than they actually use, as evidenced by the bale dumps in certain areas. There are many factors involved here. Food is only one part of the equation. Meaning that more than abundant food supply would be required for population rebounds.
|
|
|
Post by CoonDuke on Mar 10, 2004 13:38:27 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure the Amish farms produce hay. Phil could tell us for sure.
It's just hard for me to blame coyotes 100% for the demise of the fox.
The only thing that changed here in the last number of years years is the farming practices. Most farms here are soybeans to corn, corn to soybeans. Harvest and mow it to the ground. No more standing weeds like in the old cultivator days.
The same could be said for the pheasants. We can't blame coyotes for the demise of the pheasants.
I did take this thread on a tangent...didn't I? Sorry BK.
DJ, I bet most of that hay in your area is alfalfa. Alfalfa is mowed many times a year. Probably enough that it doesn't make good habitat for mice. Years ago, it was timothy and clover. I remember as a kid baling hay all the meadow voles you saw running out of the windrows in the clover mix hays.
|
|