|
Post by Steve Gappa on Nov 14, 2006 7:47:02 GMT -6
I definitely do not believe that the coyotes caused the downfall of the reds.
While I don't think the coyotes helped, I also think the decline of the red in many areas was the result of 2 things: habitat loss and disease. And the same time- and why is a different subject- the coyotes started thewir expansion.
As the dominant predator, of course they compete with reds.
I heard at a convention campfire, the comment that 15-20 years after coyotes move in, reds start to increase.
Thats certainly true here. 20 years ago, I caught 1 red for every 10 coyotes. Today , is 1 and 3. Same areas. Whats different, is the massive increase in set aside lands.
And its not like you catch coyotes here and reds there- the good spots cacontain 50/50 reds and coyotes.
the ONE study I have read, conducted with radioed fox and coyotes, to study the interation of reds and coyotes, conclude- from 100s of radio encounters and dozs of personal observations from blinds.....
that the old dog/cat releationship touted simply could not be confirm in any way... coyotes do not chase every fox they see----- in fact, they seldom go out of their way to bother even chasing a fox.
|
|
|
Post by ColdSteel on Nov 14, 2006 8:33:46 GMT -6
I can't speak much on reds our grays outnumber them 10 to 1,but I have had a big loss in fox numbers in my area.I guess I am guilty of blaming it on the coyotes moving in.The food and cover are still there as a matter of fact there are more rabbits around here now than ever.I went 2 times with some boys last year and killed 39 one day and 41 the next trip that around here is unheard of.Maybe disease hurt the fox population around here I don't know but something sure hurt it .
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 14, 2006 8:33:47 GMT -6
I could not disagree more, I mean likle vehemently disagree. the proof? it`s in the pudding. what is, is.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 14, 2006 8:39:15 GMT -6
p.s. we went over your study you quote and it is a figures lie and liars figutre deal. not saying you are misquoting the study or lieing, merely that the study was not done at the time of year coyotes were killing 100% of the red pups., i.e. spring early summer. a case of a university egghead not being able to see the forest for the trees. I detailed my concern before with university phd material conducting studies with no baselines, and for sure no practical field experience or lifes experience either. I could say some folks are immune toiaids virus so it`s ok to have sex with every woman in africa too. but how accurate is that?
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 14, 2006 8:42:34 GMT -6
nor have studies even considered the disease spreading vector potential of coyotes to spread canine distemper over 10- 100 mile swaths with one sick coyote, to where pre coyote days disease outbreaks were generally small mile or two pockets as no animals migrated as far as coyotes or had 100 square mile home ranges. the gone fox, 100% coyote caused. I`d stake my reputation and life on it. sure of it, 100%
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Nov 14, 2006 11:48:55 GMT -6
I also disagree, when I was a kid in the seventies, there was a lot of trapping pressure due to prices. Back then there were very few coyotes, they were just arriving, but fox were everywhere. Now it's hard to find a fox, we have caught a dozen yotes, but only one fox. This area is all farm land and old farm land, but up north in the bid woods while moose hunting I did notice a more even relationship in the numbers, that is curious.
|
|
|
Post by Dhat on Nov 14, 2006 16:16:38 GMT -6
disagree here as well. i wasn't at this area in the 70s but the people tell me reds were common as flies and coyotes were rare and kept out due to being a sheep area. poison was banned, sheep went out due to increased coyotes, coyotes are now out of control and no reds left. Only habitat change to speak of here is increased houses in rural areas which i think would have benefited the reds when the coyotes moved in. Where i grew up there are still some reds and very very few coyotes. like i say thats here I don't know about elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Traveler on Nov 14, 2006 16:29:41 GMT -6
In my area the coyote is 95% of the reason for our loss of Reds.I was here long before the coyote and I've watched the changes thru the years.Sure.......we've lost some A-1 fox country to the dozers and urban spread,but all in all,they've not had nearly the impact as the coyote.
Our greys held on much longer than the reds.......but now they're gone too.I've had more foxes killed in sets by coyotes than I care to remember.
In my country..........the coyote is THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR OUR LOSS OF FOXES !!!!
|
|
|
Post by furman on Nov 14, 2006 16:37:11 GMT -6
I don’t know about the fox-coyote thing but it’s easy to see that fox are increasing in our area
|
|
|
Post by Possum on Nov 14, 2006 16:37:51 GMT -6
I've gotta go with the disagree crowd, as well. If it were just disease, why has the same phenomenon repeated from the Mississippi on east? I could see it over a few counties or a quarter of a state but not that much territory.
However, Doc may have a point about coyotes being a disease transmitter. Never thought of that before.
But coyotes/foxes--intra-specific strife, direct predation and perhaps coyote spread K-9 diseases spell doom to fox numbers when coyotes infiltrate an area.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Nov 14, 2006 16:46:58 GMT -6
p.s. we went over your study you quote and it is a figures lie and liars figutre deal.
cheap talk- prove it.
my area the coyote is 95% of the reason for our loss of Reds
there is no possible way that can be either proved or dispprove. Its your opinion, no more, no less.
Ask yourself this cvery simple question- WHY WERE COYOTE POPULATIONS AT AN ALL TIME LOW PRIOR TO THEIR EXPANSION? WHAT REVERSED THAT TREND?
then...make the short, quick, logical leap to what was occurring in the fox populaiton both in goverment programs, farming practices changes, and disease.
Easy to follow the pack- hey, Duke traps are junk. Why? I read it all the time......
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 14, 2006 17:00:12 GMT -6
nah, I`m just quitting.
|
|
|
Post by mikespring on Nov 14, 2006 17:05:21 GMT -6
I agree with Steve...I said it before and I will say it again...the coyotes are thriving here and so are the fox. I also know coyotes do not kill all fox they happen to see in traps...I know this from snow trapping off and on over the last 22 years.
|
|
|
Post by Traveler on Nov 14, 2006 17:12:24 GMT -6
I'm kindda going to lean towards Bob's way of thinking here.I'm not going to argue with someone in Mn about my country here.I know this country,you don't.If you don't believe me...........that's your problem...........but I know of what I speak.
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Nov 14, 2006 17:31:30 GMT -6
I used to love this particular argument...but I'm staying out of it this time. I'm still undecided.
I'm HOPING that Steve and Mike are right. I've seen things that lead me to believe they may be. Also seen things that lead me to believe otherwise. Time will tell I guess.
Mike, I had a Red torn from a trap by Coyotes 'bout a week ago...nothing left but a leg ripped off at the shoulder. Had another one chewed on, but not killed, requiring some stitches. Caught a Red today that had Coyote tracks in the mud all around her...untouched.
Rick.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 14, 2006 17:55:20 GMT -6
boys, you doubters I`m sure are all from s.e. pa- the only spot in the u.s. with reds left in numbers, the last stronghold. will your tiny amish farms and many people save the red? to some degree always yes, but come see me in 10 years. and don`t say 100,000 trappers across the whole rest of the u.s. didn`t tell you so. steve, with all due respect, you knock down give or take 20-30 reds a year, about one good day in real red country. if your coyotes weren`t affecting reds you would catch a bare minimum of 8 reds to the section, i.e. 300-500 a year even on a tiny line, but yet you are at 20-30. buddy, they are gone already. you just never saw a baseline in the 60`s and 70`s to know what normal is. this must be taken into consideration . the ones ripped up in the traps aren`t what will ruin your populations, it will be the increased spread of disease ( vectors) and the killing of any dens not in human protected areas like golf courses, towns, industrial parks, under interstates and in clover leafs etc. the red is more scared of the coyotes than they are people. remember, they work 24/7 and do it 365 days a year.
|
|
|
Post by mikespring on Nov 14, 2006 18:53:43 GMT -6
I`m from NY...Rick is from the Buffalo area roughly 60-70 miles between us Bob...with unlimited access I know either one of us (given the time and access) could knock down 500 reds a season,looping from his area too mine..all with decent coyote populations. Not because were that good..just that the fox are there to be caught...
I want to state that I`m not arguing with any one here...just trying to understand why I seem too live in an area that supports both species.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Nov 14, 2006 19:04:53 GMT -6
maybe Bob, and maybe not.
The one research on this, suggests otherwise- and you calling it lies and nonsense IS just nonsense. Nobody analyzed the study and determined it lies- at least not here n this forum or anywhere I've read. ND has a very good reputation o canine studies ,s and I for one will take the report for what it said- and that was NO CONCLUSIONS could be made that coyotes hunted down, killed and/or chased every red they encountered- in fact- the DIRECT OPPOSITE was noted.
Now- you can disagree- you can argue ND coyote/ red interactions isn't indicative of the country as a whole, you could debate seasonal variations, etc- but to boldly call a research paper bogus- is going a little far.
You say the proof is in the pudding- well, it sure tastes like pudding here...
1) in 1965- reds were everywhere
2) no coyotes
3) CRP lands dwindled to nothing
4) coyotes, thanks to gov regs- began expanding at a tremendous rate
5) red had a huge die out due to disease
6) 1975- coyotes began to appear
7) mid 80s- trapped coyote numbers and sightings were 10 to 1 coyotes.
8) late 80s, 90s- cpr lands, pheasant forever, etc had huge growth rate
9) every year in the 200's, red numbers had increased
10) today- reds are 25% and have been roughly that past 3 years.
11) reds and coyotes are in good numbers on the same farm
PS- killing a stationary red in a trap is irrelevant
Now those thinking the coyote is responsible for it all might be right, those thinking that isn't true might be right- and any logical thoughtful conclusion is that their could be multiple reasons.
Things aren't always or even usually...black and white.
Traveler- doesn't matter if I know your country of not- you made the statement that 95% of the red fox decline was in direct relationship to the coyote.
I called you on it, and say that there is no way of knowing whether your figure of 95% is correct or not. I'd say it was a SWAG. But you stand by it....
So I'm wrong- then prove it to me...
Tell me please- how did you come up with that precise figure of 95%- what studies, statistics, etc did you use?
|
|
|
Post by Traveler on Nov 14, 2006 19:52:14 GMT -6
I said I wasn't going to argue and I meant that.BUT..........there are several ways of looking at the 95% thing.Our country here is 95%of the same way it was in the 60's.Meaning yes we've lost some A-1 fox country to the urban push in certain areas.Other areas remain the same as they was in the 50's.No big change in ANYTHING other than the arrival of the coyote.
Now........after the coyotes started getting a toe hold in this country,the fox population started down hill.Not an over night thing,but a taper.Same thing happened with our rabbits and BIG time with groundhogs.Reds was the first ones to take it in the shorts.Greys hung on longer due to the brushy country they hung in and their more aggressive nature.But in time they're gone too.Yes we have little pockets of reds here and there.Same with greys,but neither are a pimple on the ass of what we had in the 50's.
The single biggest change we've had in this country in a 50 year time period is coyotes.So.......you answer this for me.Why did we lose reds,greys,rabbits and groundhogs all at the same time ?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Nov 14, 2006 20:55:54 GMT -6
I don't know the answer.
It could be several things and a combination of many.
here- everything is on the increase- rabbits, pheasants, etc, etc.
including and with coyotes.
to have an area that is 95% unchanged over 40+ years is very unusual. Wish I could say the same for here.
What is clear here- is when the CRP lands became popular again- and CRP lands are growing at a large rate- so did the small game and so did the reds.
Its multi faceted. I don't deny coyotes had something do with with fox numbers- but I don't beleive all of it and I do believe- habitat triumphs.
|
|