Canine Temperament

[trappnman]

Plenty of mice in alfalpha-

The Amish only rotate the 2 crops? Here- its corn, beans and hay- with oats being a cover crop for the new seeded hay. So its corn- then new seeding and oats, then 2-3 years hay, then beans, etc-

No- I don't think you can blame the coyote 100% for the fox demise- or even close to that %.

[dj88ryr]

Yep, a lot of it is, but the Amish Farms use different farming methods and have lots of hedgerows that are full of mice.

[CoonDuke]

Steve,
No, I believe the Amish rotate more crops...hay, corn, grain. I was talking about farms in my area.

Most of the larger farms in my area grow corn, soybeans and wheat. We don't have many Amish in my area like in Lancaster Co.

There are some beef farmers here that grow no hay whatsoever. Just feed grain corn and silage. Farmers without cattle grow no hay.

We don't have many dairy farms in my immediate area. I believe you find hay on most dairy farms.

Yes, voles are found in alfalfa. It just seems I see more in the other hay mixes.

[dj88ryr]

Why is it that every time someone mentions Amish, they either bring up Lancaster or some other equaly as commercialized Amish population. We have the real Amish here, they use the old farming practices, and we have more interconnected square miles of Amish farms any where.
Steve, you need to plan a small vacation next fall and come out and experience this first hand, I guarantee you will have a blast!!

[Dusty]

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.


Anyone have any ageing data for “low” and “high” population levels? Perhaps the dummies get killed off quicker and you have a brighter population during high years, whereas during low years much of the population isn’t very bright. Maybe its just experience – the survivors have mostly seen a friend or two picked off as the population was declining. Maybe it’s just that in high years the population is mostly stooopid puppies.


If over crowded where populations are at saturation points or beyond

Probably not for long. There is a “balance” in nature, it’s often just not very dampened. Most of the time, in temperate climates with non-cyclical critters (like most of the continental US), food controls “predator” (a term I use loosely to include “predators” like deer) populations. The closer to the top of the food chain you are, and the less “tops” you have to work with, the more you respond to lower-level changes. Deer, for example, are near the top, but there are many peaks for them to utilize – grass, browse, mast crops, wheat, golf courses, yards, etc. Critters like lynx have only one top – bunnies. The point being, fox populations probably respond fairly quickly to microtine fluctuations if they’re half as specialized as I think they are, where coyotes can just “switch peaks” to groundhogs or deer or wild grapes.

If that is in fact the case, I’d speculate that 1 fox always has available X pounds of food – that food is within a small area during a high population, and spread out over a larger area during a low population cycle.

Throw a couple large predators and unpredictable winters into the equation, and that all goes out the window. However, I feel it holds fairly true for most of your areas.

My area has had low populations of fox for a few years now and they are just plain hard to catch.

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.



Perhaps dirtholes don’t work as well during low years because food is, in fact, scarce and no other foxes are cacheing, where in high years there is an abundance of food and lots of mice are being killed and cached. If that’s the case, fox would be more prone to work dirtholes in high years because it looks like they or another fox has cached a meal there.


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.

Coyotes, at least, seem to be very good at regulating litter size based on resources. I think it is primarily postpartum. However, most rodents are capable of resorbing (so not losing all the investment in) even very late-term embryos.


are "high" populations abnormal populations...or "normal" for that area.

I doubt if any area with any sort of cyclical population has a “normal.” As an extreme example, lemmings have “normal” years of perhaps 1/mi^2 followed by “normal” years of perhaps 10,000/mi^2.

So I really haven’t answered anything, and I’ve contradicted myself a couple of times – at least I never mentioned the Amish…..

[BK]

Steve I was talking about the same areas, more or less the same traplines. What is the norm, I haven't a clue,........ perhaps it's to be high some years and low at other times?
Take your pick as to the reasons for this.
But I do think whey are much easier to trap when they are thick, I see evidence of this before and after it snows. I think it has to do with greed and or competition.

[trappnman]

CoonDuke- now I see what you mean. Yes, we have those here to- further west in the flatter land- cash croppers. Pour the chemicals into the ground- Yes, that definitely explains the lack of mice, shrews, etc.


The point being, fox populations probably respond fairly quickly to microtine fluctuations if they’re half as specialized as I think they are, where coyotes can just “switch peaks” to groundhogs or deer or wild grapes


Is that what fox studies show- that they are much more specialized that coyotes? Interesting. Very interesting. This explains a lot of things and throws another wrench in the works LOL


Coyotes, at least, seem to be very good at regulating litter size based on resources. I think it is primarily postpartum. However, most rodents are capable of resorbing (so not losing all the investment in) even very late-term embryos

This is a contencious point. I used to argue this heatedly- but became convinced(by our Wiley E) that while there is cause and effect- it wasn't what I thought it was.

This is the debate: Older coyotes have more pups than younger females (and raise them better). In a general population, with more younger females, The AVERAGE # of pups per litter is down- and survival is lower.

In a low population from hunting, trapping, etc- the % of the older females becomes higher overal- thus the AVERAGE # of pups in a low population are, per female, is higher.

I forget the exact studies quotes, but allow me to say I was arguing the opposite, and became convinved to change my thoughts.

And the odd thing-this goes against how dogs have pups- in dogs, the YOUNGER females have more pups and healthier pups- and according to breeding records and field trial results- the best pups are proiduced i nthe first few litters- often a females first litter procues the best pups.

what say Dusty- have you heard this?

[dj88ryr]

I still think we are dealing with a lot more variables than we see on the surface of things. Here's a theory, and it's just a theory, so blast it to hell if you want. Back when we had very high populations of fox in this area and the state as a whole, we had fewer if any coyotes, in most areas. The extremely high population densities had to be controlled somehow, and as we know, nature takes care of this through disease, in most cases. The fox at the time had few predators except, what was hunted, trapped, and hit by cars.
So, nature gives the population a triple whammy, mange, distemper, and to a lesser extent rabies. Couple that with the drought and it's affect on other species and we have a tough but not impossible road back to higher populations. Add to this, the arrival on the scene of the coyote. Now the fox has to compete for territory, compete for food, and at the same time try to restablish itself. This is a tall bill, but it will be overcome through adaptation over time.
I believe right now, PA is going through that feeling out period, the coyote doesn't have much to worry about, it basically, lives where it wants, as long as the area has everything he desires. The fox on the other hand, is trying to find his place in the new world. Many of the areas he likes are taken, but he will survive. The fox is going to become, more of a cover oriented animal, as I had experienced in NH, where we have had good populations of coyotes since the late 70s. There the Red is more of a transition animal, relating more to the cover between the fields and big woods. I tried those sets here, they weren't very productive, most of the fox I caught were in the open, of course we don't have large populations of coyotes here yet. I would estimate 80%-20% at the present, but I also feel that, the percentage is changing every year, in favor of the coyote. But, as time goes on, and the " New " populations of fox, learn to adapt to sharing with Mr. Yote, they will rebound.
I have heard from some sources, that it takes 6-10 years for fox populations to rebound from severe mange infestation without any other factors involved. Add to that, the distemper, rabies, drought, and introduction of a new species that is higher on the food chain to compete with, and you have the recipe for a long drawn out recovery.

On the bright side though, Gappa,Zags, Z, and Stef, are going to teachus all to become better coyote trappers in June, so there is something to look forward to, while we wait for the fox to rebound.

[musher]

Tman: What do you mean by "best" pups? Given the millions of sperm produced by the dog and the dozens (?) produced by a bitch what, other than luck and nutrition, as well as general health, determines pup quality?

[trappnman]

Back in the 60s and 70s- a couple of beagle field trail breeders compared notes- Geo Nixon alone bred hundreds of females a year- he was top dog with his Pearson Creek hounds.

A surprising statistic was discovered- overwhelmingly so- that the best pups that a female produced in her life time was from predominantly the first litters- with her #1 litter more times than not being the best.

THe "best" was solely determined by how many field champions were produced from the litter $wise.

not only did the younger females whelp and raise more pups- the pups WERE BETTER then future litters. Many bitches that produced say 7-10 fd chs did them all from the first couple litters. Yes, the sire has an effect- but 90% or more of these were double Fd Ch mated- and many times bred repeatedly to the same sire.

This was so pronouced- that Geo was adamant about not WASTING that first breeding. He said many would take a good female- breed her to Old Joe around the corner- "just to she what she produces."

When those first pups turned out real good- then she was mated to the "big name" stud- and the subsequet pups often never matched Old Joes pups- even though Old Joe wasn't a fraction of the hounds she would later be mated with.

Lots of people, including myself- took this to heart and didn't waste that first breeding. After all- when a hall of fame Breeder- perhaps breeding more Fd Ch than any man before or since- plus the 1000s produced from his dogs- shares his breeding theroys- he was also one of the top Dairy cow breeders in the US, maybe even more wellknown there than in beagling circuits- located in Missouri- it pays to listen.

[BK]

From Fox and Coyotes, to beagles to cows?

[Dusty]

In a low population from hunting, trapping, etc- the % of the older females becomes higher overal- thus the AVERAGE # of pups in a low population are, per female, is higher.

I don't think the mechanism is important. If the females are in fact resorbing embryos they get a bit of an energy gain out of the deal. If they aren't breeding they never invest the energy in the first place. If the pups die soon after birth it costs the population very little. Pretty cool trick, any way you slice it. Without some method of regulating young, there would be lots of pups running around diminishing an already diminished resource, not to mention what they're doing to Mom, and most would probably die anyway. As long as they don't make it to the eating stage, the species wins during a "hard" year. I'd actually be a little surprised to find that canids are capable of resorbing embryos on a regular basis. It makes a lot of sense in microtines where the resources vary wildly over a very short timespan and always have; canids just don't see that very often (ever?). Even a "huge population swing" in canids is orders of magnitude flatter than a real swing in lemmings. Arctic fox might be the exception, but I'll leave them over with the beagles and Amish for now.

BTW, I know of one group of collared coyotes that hasn't raised a pup in 4 years. Whatever they're doing, it works; the pups aren't wasting resources.

And the odd thing-this goes against how dogs have pups- in dogs, the YOUNGER females have more pups and healthier pups- and according to breeding records and field trial results- the best pups are proiduced i nthe first few litters- often a females first litter procues the best pups.

That's spiffy if they're eating Alpo and living in a kennel. Ova are essentially carried for the life of a female, and that genetic material does occasionally get scrambled up a bit - particularly if those beagles are living next to a nuclear reactor, around high voltage, are eating carcinogens (and they most likely are), or talking on a cell phone too much. All Mom has to do is squeeze em out and not intentionally kill em. On top of that, all dogs are inbred as hell - or "linebred" for you PC types - and that genetic material ain't in the best of shape from the get-go.

Wild canids have it a bit rougher, and I'd bet older mothers are better mothers simply because they've learned from their past mistakes (ie, dead pups).

[musher]

Interesting stuff about the first litter in dogs. What I have heard, regarding sled dogs, is that the female IS NEVER AS GOOD A SLED DOG after she has had a litter. She loses something. That's why sledders only breed their best females when they are 7 years old or so.

A 7 year old wild canid is OLD. The first litter of a young wild canid has an inexperienced mom that might not be able to feed them well - even though they might have great noses.

There's a lesson in there somewhere! If someone figures out what it is I would like to know.

[trappnman]

LOL- lots of tangents- a good thread...

Dusty- I agree with your points about domestication and dogs vs wild...but you missed the main point.

And that's that the percentages of Fd Ch in the 1st litter or two was by far and away the highest than in succeeding litters- even though most of these females (all the dams were Fd Chs) had many, many litters of well cared for pups. So mortality rates were unimportant.

For whatever reason- the females produced her best- and best meaning a combo of nose, mouth, build, speed, etc- performing pups early.

musher- my dad believed that also concerning hunting dogs.

[Dusty]

Steve: that was exactly my point, if in fact I ever had one. Older dogs may throw genetically inferior pups, which is a lesser problem than young inexperienced mothers in wild canids.

[trappnman]

ok- now I see what you mean...