|
Post by seldom on Mar 1, 2012 10:37:42 GMT -6
I am not saying all lures are created equal. You better believe it! I keep thinking about the 3 cows vs 30 cows.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Mar 1, 2012 11:00:00 GMT -6
If you add gland lure along with urine to the post is it now a "lured" set or is it still a scent post? I still consider it a post. I don't know about that, the studies are addressing scent marking in the context of urine alone. One study mentioned that "commercial lure" attracted and it didn't describe it beyond that one statement or relate any experiences using it in conjunction with urine that I can remember. So the question is, are you adding the lure because you've proved it enhances your success rate, meaning you've tried your scent posts without it and had a lower success rate using only urine. Or, is the adding more to do with increasing your confidence level ?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2012 11:20:08 GMT -6
yes, adding lure changes the makeup of the set 100%. I'll even go out on a limb and saying using mixed commercial urine, changes it as well, insofar as any "reading abilities" that coyotes get from a urine marked location.
its a fair question- does a majority of coyotes not remarking urine spots, mean that those coyotes don't approach or investigate the set?
and I don't know- but we do have a couple of clues- #1- a fair amount of coyotes do not (per Jim's link) investigate LURE stations and #2- scent marking has a purpose, as evidenced by time of year (breeding. rearing pups, etc) who does it and who doesn't (transients, pups, betas, alphas) and where (interior vs edge).
We know coyotes don't urinate as per dogs (frequency, areas, individuals), we know that they scent mark for a reason.
so, if those reasons are eliminated (as per above), then does the desire to "check them out" without remarking, exist enough to matter? Esp when one considers the response to lure stations?
I would think not- that if they had the "urge" to come close enough to touch the location (which is our goal in trapping), then they would remark as well. But that's guess.
a point overlooked- is that defecating, is 100% opposite in urine marking in that there is no noticible difference in where or by whom. That scat, is not a viable part of marking, which is done to convey information.
|
|
|
Post by freepop on Mar 1, 2012 11:20:49 GMT -6
Two fold Seldom. I don't have much confidence in just urine after rain, especially heavy or fequent occurances. Basically concerned about dillution.washing away. It's also another smell to be investigated, enticing curiosity, keeps the feet moving, etc.
|
|
|
Post by freepop on Mar 1, 2012 11:30:40 GMT -6
Interesting thoughts Steve.
So scat, especially fresh, doesn't say anything about whom left it there?
Dogs sniff each other's behinds, are they just checking to see if they wiped good? We all know the scent glands are located there and has some strong smell. Do they serve no purpose or is some evident in scat and convey a message?
(this is good stuff)
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2012 11:35:44 GMT -6
So scat, especially fresh, doesn't say anything about whom left it there?
not so much that- more that it wasn't used as urine was, in marking. and that the incidence of who and where showed little or no difference in transients, pups, adults, etc.
the conclusion was urine was "there when needed" but scat- when you got to go, you go. LOL
|
|
|
Post by freepop on Mar 1, 2012 11:40:24 GMT -6
I always assume that when there is a coyote in a dirt hole, it was caught first then the coyote that is in the scent post (with gland lure) got caught second. But in that thinking, I always wonder if that coyote in the scent post (again with gland) visited the dirt hole(s) in the vicinity and then got caught there or not, with no other animal in a trap.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Mar 1, 2012 11:54:32 GMT -6
I always assume that when there is a coyote in a dirt hole, it was caught first then the coyote that is in the scent post (with gland lure) got caught second. But in that thinking, I always wonder if that coyote in the scent post (again with gland) visited the dirt hole(s) in the vicinity and then got caught there or not, with no other animal in a trap. . I don't know Free, assuming is being subjective and both of us know that in our careers that'll get us in trouble! . As will taking for gospel that "those who said it to the greatest magnitude" are the last word on any subject.
|
|
|
Post by freepop on Mar 1, 2012 15:04:37 GMT -6
Agreed Seldom. I was verbally conditioned I don't know what to think about the hot dog eating penned up coyote study. I do believe that there is some credible evidence on scent marking instinct. What about the perceived threat to a terriotry? Early in the writing they established that the dominant animal is "smarter". So how long does it take that coyote to understand he isn't getting out and no other animals are getting in? If he realizes a real threat to the area, would he behave differently? Additionally, they observed the animals for a total of 6 hours, kinda small sampling IMO. Finally, I understand that they put the urine/scat out and then began observing an hour after. Having observed my beagles for several years, in the right conditions they can smell animals that have been there the night or day before. I am curious as to the coyotes thinking about the scat and urine, if it dropped from the sky or old Joe the human came by to dirty up our little pen again with the neighbors' stuff. Any animal is going to realize that the scat/urine didn't come from an animal. Steve, I didn't see anythig about scat not being effective but wil take your word on that.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Mar 1, 2012 15:53:37 GMT -6
I don't know 1080 personally but I'm thinking he has two little 540's running a serious search engine in his "coyote inter-sanctum" pulling these studies! Just look at the research trail of reference studies!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2012 16:04:05 GMT -6
freepop- I didn't say scat was ineffective- what the study said, was that they found the same amount edge and core, by all classes and ages of coyotes, and they concluded that scat was not used as urine was for scent marking.
Explorer couldn't open that link for me, but FireFox did-
Actually, if you look at it one way- the dominate coyote was LESS smarter than the subordinate in that the subordinates learned to eliminate foraging time, and the dominates went about it the same every time. and when they ran as pairs, the subordinate "lost" the advantage and imitated the dominants behavior
Lots i this study I could question as well concerning the carryover of breeding pairs actions in small enclosures to groups in the wild, the study mentions it could be a mitigating factor that without predation, new territory to work and etc, the results might be skewed.
and the fact that subordinates marked more than dominants on territory line, is exactly 180 from observed non captive coyotes- so I think we can take as a given, this is one aspect that IS different based on captivity in relatively small areas
Didn't it also say that only 44% of coyotes used an established/previously existing scent post?
What was interesting is the Matching Law theory- and as far as I can understand, its like the old adage- "the time it takes to do a certain job, expands and contracts to how much time is available"
and in coyotes, this means foraging time is directly related to the gain of the reward (3 cows vs 30 cows)
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2012 16:23:45 GMT -6
seldom- hes got all these at his fingertips! and most likely knows most by memory
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2012 16:36:56 GMT -6
Any animal is going to realize that the scat/urine didn't come from an animal.
I believe I read that the urine used, was from the same singular unrelated coyote? So that it was both consistent, and an outsider.
human scent was also accomidated for
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Mar 1, 2012 16:56:06 GMT -6
Didn't it also say that only 44% of coyotes used an established/previously existing scent post?
and in coyotes, this means foraging time is directly related to the gain of the reward (3 cows vs 30 cows)
Yup, 44%. Remembering the section of the one study that discussed the 3 cows vs 30 cows I took it as the coyotes, especially the subordinates(?) and/or dispersals could tell the difference by scent alone. So the magnitude and/or volume and/or the ability to decifer different volumes of cows played a major role. Whatever the median, they could tell when there was 3 and when there was 30 by scent alone. BUT I may not be remembering correctly either so I'll have to read it again.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 1, 2012 17:41:10 GMT -6
So what is the bottom line of urine, scat, gland lure and set location "According" to these studies in relation to catch % of sets made inside the territory and on the edge of such? ?? AS it pertains to the use of urine alone, urine with scat, urine from one animal versus urine from multiple animals mixed together? gland lure from a single source versus gland lure from mixed sources and what is the exact relevance in the use in fur trapping versus ADC work ie: 1-2 coyotes versus many coyotes durring the "High" portions of an annual population in a given area? ??
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 1, 2012 17:56:42 GMT -6
all unrelated TC-
you, sir, are missing the forest cause too darn many trees! LOL
ALL my discussion re: urine marking was in this context-
I have read many times, on the 'standard" urine post set. Whose self proclaimed goal, is to catch "coyotes"- meaning, one would think, that it was a consistent- meaning, ready to catch alphas, betas, pups, transients.
As per a flat set. As per any other lured set- whether smeared on a rock, grass clump or down a hole. all sets that WILL appeal to ALL classes
the one study quoted other studies stating LURE use, was far more likely to catch a coyote than pure urine use- and that result, jives perfectly with the multiple studies listed here.
I thought it obvious, through my posts and the general discussion, that were are (were) talking FUR trapping, where the goal is to have multiple coyotes, meaning all classes, work a set.
WHERE to catch the most vis a vis your questions- are all separate albeit interesting subjects- but lets not confuse the singular point made by the OP with other aspects of maximizing catches.
bring up one point at a time.
BTW- several of the answers, are listed in the combined studies. Lots of little "throwaways" if one looks
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 1, 2012 18:12:46 GMT -6
So we went through all of this to make the conclusion that a multiple attractant set overall would entice MORE coyotes than the singular attraction of JUST urine, in a fur trapping situation? Just urine sets will catch coyotes as will blind trails sets with zero visual/olfactory attractant used, b ut overall not to the same degree as the formentioned so what was the point? Who stated that a scent post was the end all be all high production set to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by stickbowhntr on Mar 1, 2012 21:54:27 GMT -6
the FAS is that similar to VFA I read on in the 80's?
|
|
|
Post by stickbowhntr on Mar 1, 2012 21:56:08 GMT -6
O yea, somewhere in MY records I have the Formulation that O'gorman put in print for it or SFE back then too. Some wild stuff.Some good reads too if you can ever read it.
|
|
|
Post by foxman on Mar 2, 2012 10:43:22 GMT -6
wonderful! ;D
|
|