|
Post by Wiley on Mar 31, 2007 16:08:54 GMT -6
RW: "These coyotes are worked very hard year round. Yes they would have favorite areas in a given area, funnels and ect..but your forgetting there is a resident Damage Control Biologist working these coyotes 24 X 7 x 365 and he has been there for a LOT of years. Sure there are some pups he hasn't found but these are not your average coyotes."
Haha! Name me a place where coyotes are not exploited other than a national park. I hate to point out the obvious but if the coyotes weren't there, you wouldn't be catching them.
Hey Ignoring!
Still remember that $10,000 bet you offered for anyone that could prove that coyotes can recover from mange? On page 82 of O'Gorman's catalog there is a picture of a coyote that haired back in after mange and the caption reads, "Coyote on the O.L.L. clearly recovering from mange as some do". I'm sure Craig will appreciate your check for $10,000. Haha!
Pup trapper!
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Mar 31, 2007 17:59:40 GMT -6
Wiley, If you truely believe that coyotes naturally recover from mange.......I got some ocean front property in South Dakota to sell you.
|
|
|
Post by woodie on Mar 31, 2007 20:03:18 GMT -6
Well,I quess it was just a matter of time before the urine thread turned into a pissing match,even if one sided. Too bad,lots of good info being shared here. Mike
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 1, 2007 8:01:53 GMT -6
Bob No coyotes in Texas or darn few? The WS report would say different, but whatever this is really getting side tracked.
I never said, urine was bad and I do use some urine but non targets and cattle hinder it's use in areas of the US.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Apr 1, 2007 9:16:19 GMT -6
tc,. for real, their data must be outdated as there are vast areas where they are near extinct from mange. some I know of first hand. historically texas, ks etc are coyote population monsters, but not a few of the last years. ma nature has accomplished what man has failed at. seriously, if I was w.s. I would be concerned about the future needs of my job in some areas , strictly from mange decimation of populations. I`m sure there is beaver and skunk and cat work etc, but if this mange thing hangs on for years it will definitly affect the producers and countys willing to pay for a program. you need to convince them you killed all those coyotes I guess, and not dead from disease.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Apr 1, 2007 10:48:12 GMT -6
RW: "Wiley, If you truely believe that coyotes naturally recover from mange.......I got some ocean front property in South Dakota to sell you."
Hahaha! Listen to you!
As if you'd know more about mange than the animal vets I talked to at KSU and CSU that both stated that mange recovery is probable.
Rock on Waddell!
Woodie,
Thanks for the thread update!
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Apr 1, 2007 11:49:03 GMT -6
Are you misstating this and substituting 'probable' for 'possible ? Are you referring to individual animals or populations ?
I'd actually like to see some data on this, reports, studies, journal articles, rather than anecdotal information.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Apr 1, 2007 14:26:24 GMT -6
FWS: "Are you misstating this and substituting 'probable' for 'possible ? Are you referring to individual animals or populations ?"
No!
FWS: "I'd actually like to see some data on this, reports, studies, journal articles, rather than anecdotal information."
Then I'd suggest you get busy and contact KSU and CSU yourself instead of always expecting someone else to do your research for you.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Apr 1, 2007 14:35:44 GMT -6
Total bullshit and you know it.
You need to learn to recognize a legitimate request is not an attack on you.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Apr 1, 2007 20:07:28 GMT -6
FWS: "You need to learn to recognize a legitimate request is not an attack on you."
I never took it as an "ATTACK".
If you have facts to challenge that coyotes cannot recover from mange then bring them. If not, then don't expect someone else to provide the data for you.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Apr 1, 2007 21:01:20 GMT -6
So what you're saying is that there are no journal articles, studies, reports or other data that you're aware of beyond the anecdotal information you provided.
FYI, I'm not disagreeing with your contention but I want to see more source material.
See, the way this information sharing thing works is that you provide real information. This being the internet it would be reasonable to expect a link. It's not about fighting or arguing.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Apr 1, 2007 21:24:59 GMT -6
FWS: "So what you're saying is that there are no journal articles, studies, reports or other data that you're aware of beyond the anecdotal information you provided."
Total bullshit and you know it.
Is there an echo in here?
FWS: "FYI, I'm not disagreeing with your contention but I want to see more source material."
Then go get it. What are you waiting for? Someone to read it to you?
FWS: "See, the way this information sharing thing works is that you provide real information."
No the way this information sharing thing works is if you don't agree with what has been stated, you provide real information that contradicts it.
FWS: "This being the internet it would be reasonable to expect a link."
Then provide one!
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Apr 2, 2007 8:21:45 GMT -6
Hmmmn... once I weeded out the junk, this turned into an interesting thread.
I have done some pretty extensive research into the possibility of animals recovering from mange. most on the Internet, but some in phone calls to the UM.
I couldn't find any definitive studies or sources that even suggests coyotes chances of recovery is probable..even the possible isn't a given.
BUT- it is a fact- and I don't have the sources cause I never kept track but could track them down if needed- that OTHER mammals have recovered from the same type of mange mite infestations as coyotes.
so the PREMISE is that its POSSIBLE for canines to recover- but coulkd never find a source of a confimed case in fox or coyotes. The cases of confirmed recovery on animals like bats is very rare, like 2-3 cases among years of work. But its been documented.
So Wiley if you are using PROBABLE as in "an individual coyote population" I'd disagree... if saying it as in " it a probable chance that some coyote somewhere, sometime recovered"- I'd agree.
my research backs that up.
I have very little expertise in looking at manged coyotes- we have few here (knock on wood)... but raised dogs for 30 years and hunted/trailed with untold numbers of hounds so have a good working knowledge of mange, and have had dogs that needed the shots to cure them of mange.
I easily can tell the difference in fresh and untreated mange, and that of healing skin. I have caught coyotes that seem, at least to me, to be in that healing stage.
I honestly think, without any thing but a WAG, that some genetic strains of coyotes are more resistant to the mite than others- just like some humans really attract skeeters, and a lucky few never get bit.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 2, 2007 12:48:28 GMT -6
This is from Texas A&M studys. For what it's worth.
Sarcoptic mange
Pence et al. (1983) and Pence and Windberg (1994) documented the effects of an epizootic of sarcoptic mange caused by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei in the coyote population of southern Texas from 1971-91. Although sporadic cases were reported previously, during the initial phase of the epizootic (1975-1978) mange prevalence increased from 14 to 24% in this coyote population. From spring 1979 to spring 1982 the mange prevalence peaked at 69% during the stationary period of the epizootic. The fall of 1982 marked the beginning of the decline phase of the epizootic with prevalences slowly decreasing to 0% by spring 1991. Subsequently, only sporadic cases have been reported.
From its point of origin in Webb County in 1975, the mange epizootic expanded centrifugally to encompass most of southern Texas during 1982-89, plus an unmeasured area in the adjacent Republic of Mexico. The high prevalences of mange, reaching nearly 70% at the peak of the epizootic with only about 1% of these animals recovering. Coupled with the decreased reproductive rates in mature territorial females infected with mange, the epizootic increased disease-induced mortality and natality rates in this coyote population.
Despite such mortality, the abundance and juvenile:adult ratios remained stable at levels consistent with a high-density population over the 21 year period of study (Pence and Windberg 1994). Thus, mange-induced mortality was regarded as compensatory with other mortality factors in this coyote population
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 2, 2007 12:52:02 GMT -6
do you have a link tc?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 2, 2007 13:39:32 GMT -6
here it is. texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/coyote/p4.htm I also found the last paragraph interesting as well, it seems without the harsh winter weather, that a big die off didn't take place as the weather had less effect on the overall population of coyotes just alot of mange in the areas and more of the mortality attributed to mange.
|
|
|
Post by archer109 on Apr 2, 2007 17:24:53 GMT -6
Wiley, it still is only a fat chance of one recovering. It says 1%, pretty slim percentage if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Apr 2, 2007 17:51:43 GMT -6
Nobody is immune to having the validity of their statements challenged. If someone makes a ridiculous claim that 90% of peg leg coyotes are caused by fence hanging, you can bet I'll challenge it. I put a value on solid information perhaps you don't.
If you don't like my posts, DON'T READ THEM!
archer 109: "Wiley, it still is only a fat chance of one recovering. It says 1%, pretty slim percentage if you ask me."
Nobody is arguing whether it is rare. Bob Wendt said it doesn't happen, period and he said he would pay anyone who could prove otherwise $10,000. That has a lot of his little followers believing him but not me. I don't bluff that easy. I've been at this game too long.
When this topic came up, I called the head animal dermatologists at KSU and CSU which are two of the top vet colleges in the nation. In both cases, these two individuals told me that recovery, although rare, was probable.
I also posted a study where a coyote was shown to have been upgraded from bad mange to recovering.
I have seen coyotes as the one pictured in O'Gorman's catalog.
I respect Bob's work ethic and his enthusiasm for trapping but he's not the final authority on all things trapping and neither am I but unlike some, I don't believe everything someone tells me.
I don't care if he labeled me an a$$hole. If he says something that I think is bullsh*t, I'm going to call him on it. I think less experienced trappers deserve to hear the debate that seperates the wheat of truth from the chaff of rhetoric.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 2, 2007 17:55:41 GMT -6
I think we both know what 17 meant... let crank it down a bit on all sides Wiley- give me a link to one study, that has more than opinion showing a spontaneous recovery on a coyote. your own sources said " In both cases, these two individuals told me that recovery, although rare, was PROBABLEso PROBABLE is not being used in the connotation that you are doing so. the qualifying words "recovery, although rare" RARE... so it RECOVERY itself is rare... then PROBABLE can't lead to being part of any norm. basically to look at the logic- all it says is its probable 100% of the survivors of recovery will recover.. but it doesn't say much more. in this case, what they really meant- and this is backed up by a lot of internet research- and I gave you all the sources once- is that... it would be rare for coyotes to have spontaneous recovery, but the likelihood is probable THAT IT DOES HAPPEN I looked hard- and never could find ANY documented cases- which was why I have always been careful in my debates with Bob- to say "other mammals".. because I do believe the PROBABILITY exists..trust me, if I would have found proof- I would have posted it all I found- is that the PROBABILITY is there...no more...but certainly no less. That was my debate with Bob- not that I had documented proof, but simply to get a concession that is COULD happen. The Texas study was interesting but not proof- only something that increase the probability.
|
|
|
Post by coyotewhisperer on Apr 2, 2007 18:01:53 GMT -6
I'm all for coyotes recovering but that one sentence about the 1% didn't in my opinion definitevly say that 1% DID survive. I want to see hard facts of studies determining this. Maybe collar 50 coyotes with mange and see if any make it. Or have a huge pen 120 acres or so and see if any make it. Probable doesn't cut it with me. I don't think they recover based on what I see but would be the first to admit I was wrong if someone could definitevly show me I was wrong. Didn't the GOV introduce mange to kill off the coyotes because it was 100% fatal? <- Don't make fun of me on that I swear I read it from OG somewhere.
Jeff
|
|