Yeti GOBOX Collection

Coyote killing contest

cjcj

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
4,437
Location
Northern.MEXICO
Most states have few if any restrictions on killing coyotes, said the president of a club that connects hunters with ranchers who are trying to rid their land of the animals.


Part predator control, part economic development ploy, the annual event began five years ago in a bid to pique outside interest in Baker via a $6,000 purse funded by entrance fees, local businesses and the Baker Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.

While organizers see success in the event's growth, the increasing popularity of such contests is prompting a backlash from animal rights groups and even some hunters, who contend the events trivialize the sport by turning it into a cash-fueled spectacle.

For the coyote, the hunts reflect the lowly place the animal still holds across the American West. Even as a debate rages between state and federal officials over whether its high profile cousin, the gray wolf, should be removed from the endangered species list, the coyote is stuck with the label "varmint", to be killed on sight.

Most states have few if any restrictions on killing the animal, said Stephen Price, president of coyoteclub.org, which connects hunters with ranchers hoping to eliminate the animals from their land.

In Baker, a town of about 1,700 tucked against the North Dakota border, supporters of this weekend's contest say it will deliver a much-needed jolt to the area's economy, drawing some 180 participants from as far away as Chicago and Seattle. They also say fewer coyotes means fewer livestock killings.


I don't know why God put them on this Earth," said Jerrid Geving, a hunter who organizes the Baker event. "If He put them on this world to give us sport for hunting, maybe. But I'll tell you what, they do a lot of damage to livestock."

Despite widespread support for that sentiment, not everyone agrees contest hunts are the answer.

Randy Tunby, a sheep rancher in nearby Plevna, Mont., has turned down requests from contest participants to hunt on his land. The results of such hunts, he said, are spotty at best.

"I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do; we ourselves call coyotes. But if you have problems with coyotes getting into your livestock, it's going to be haphazard if people coming into the contest get those," Tunby said.

Tunby prefers the services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's predator control program. According to USDA records, its Wildlife Services division shoots, poisons, traps or otherwise destroys about 80,000 coyotes a year on private and public lands nationwide.

John Shivik, a research biologist with the services' National Wildlife Research Center, said any effort to reduce livestock damage must specifically target those animals causing problems. Contest hunts might miss the worst offenders, he said.

Coyotes caused an estimated $47 million in damage to the cattle industry in 2005, according to the USDA. Sheep losses topped $10 million in 2004.

Groups including the Humane Society of the United States and Predator Defense say neither private hunts nor public agency killings offer a real solution because of the coyote's ability to rapidly reproduce.

"You kill some coyotes and six months later it's as if you didn't kill any at all. What are they accomplishing other than just being barbaric?" asked Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense.

In Montana, coyotes can be hunted 24 hours a day, 12 months a year, with no limits. That provides out-of-state hunters with ample "trigger time" not available in their home states, said Geving, who already has bagged six coyotes this winter around Baker.

Price and others describe a booming interest in coyote hunting, with an estimated 500 "calling contests" nationwide and more added every year. They get their name because hunters howl and make distress calls to mimic prey, attracting coyotes. Many, Price said, are conducted on the sly - invitation-only events meant to avoid the ire of animal rights groups.

Baker promotes its event with fliers and on the Internet. Even protesters are welcome, said Karol Zachmann, president of the Baker chamber of commerce.

"Actually, that does good for us if they come and meet us and find out we're not all that bad," she said.

To some hunters, turning the challenge of coyote hunting into a contest with large sums of money at stake defies long-standing traditions of the sport. Jim Posewitz, a leading voice in the field of hunters' ethics, says that to purists, the contests violate the basic tenet of "fair chase" - the notion that hunting is a private struggle between predator and prey.
 
I don't know why God put them on this Earth," said Jerrid Geving, a hunter who organizes the Baker event. "If He put them on this world to give us sport for hunting, maybe. But I'll tell you what, they do a lot of damage to livestock."

It's "hunters" like this that give hunting a bad name. Sometimes it's best just to say nothing at all. NHY- It is difficult to equate measuring bone and weighing them to saying God shouldn't have put them on this earth. I would still like to see deer/ elk/ etc. eventhough I measure the antlers...

A cattle ranch I hunted on for years in Eastern Montana would not allow coyote hunting/shooting at all. They had a problem with ground squirrels and prairie dogs both of which make for a lot of holes cattle could break a leg in. At least that was the ranchers philosophy.
 
Wildlife Services division shoots, poisons, traps or otherwise destroys about 80,000 coyotes a year on private and public lands nationwide.

At what cost to taxpayers? This is another subsidy for welfare ranchers. Last time I checked, the cost was $50 per coyote killed. It's probably a lot higher now.

The tree farmer who lets me hunt on his land doesn't want coyotes killed because they eat the mice that kill his seedlings.

I don't know why God put them on this Earth," said Jerrid Geving, a hunter who organizes the Baker event.

Exactly the kind of idiot who shouldn't be able to buy a hunting license. Makes any hunter with brains look bad. Probably shoots every hawk and owl he sees, too.
 
SS

Have you actually been to Baker? While I understand how things appear is important I just don't get all the holier then though thing. Especially coming from west of the divide. If you don't like this coyote contest then don't participate. Most of the people in Montana who are complaining are the "fair" chase crowd that arrived here from a Coastal state, built their McMansion on prime winter elk habitat and have never traveled east of Bonner. I wish we could divide this state in half along a line running from about 1 mile East of Billings up through Havre. You guys could then have your own little State of Confusion over there. SHEESH

This little "contest" brings people from all over to Baker, hell they go so far as to say protesters are welcome, so either shut up or go to Baker which is 566 miles away from Missoula but might as well be on a different planet. No hairy legged tofu eaters in Baker, just good old coyote killers.

I have no problem if a landowner wants to keep coyotes around or not hunt them. Hunting and shooting of coyotes has little impact on the overall population of them because they replace themselves so quickly.

Nemont
 
Hunting and shooting of coyotes has little impact on the overall population of them because they replace themselves so quickly.

Exactly why the USDA coyote killing program is another welfare rancher subsidy that is a waste of taxpayers money. Always remember to add that program's cost into all the other subsidies the tough ol' Marlboro men gummint hating welfare ranchers cry that they are entitled to while they destroy our public lands.
 
You may want to check on that Ithica because the USDA kills coyotes on Deeded land as well.

Predator control is also done by the Montana FWP to increase game populations so it isn't as simple as hating ranchers. I understand you have a near pathological hate for people grazing public lands but it makes alot of your other thinking less then clear. That is what hate does to people.

Nemont
 
Nemont, Here in Idaho the USDA spends most of their time killing coyotes on public land close to feedlots. Might be an efficient way to get more coyotes, but it's not designed to help wildlife. The other thing to look at is what time periods they concentrate on killing coyotes. Here in Idaho it's lambing time and calving time. Once again, not designed to help wildlife. Sure, they can put their spin on it and say killing any coyote is beneficial to wildlife, but the program is meant to help ranchers, not wildlife.

Idaho F&G used to do some predator control on state game lands at nesting and pheasant hatching time. Mostly for skunks. I don't know if they still do.

If anyone is interested in enhancing wildlife populations, the best thing to do is improve habitat. The most effective way to do that on public land is to reduce grazing.

I'll stop hammering on welfare ranchers when the majority of our public lands and riprarian zones are in excellent condition.

As an avid hunter I hate to see wildlife habitat destroyed by overgrazing. Even though the temperature will be in the teens tomorrow, I can't wait to go chukar hunting on BLM lands.
Nemont, I take a strident approach against public land grazing to try to balance out the radical welfare ranchers and give the middle-of-the-roaders some room to maneuver. Somebody has to balance them out.
 
It last time I checked lambing and calving season was roughly the same time as fawning/calving season. There is plenty of benifit to wildlife to remove the yotes that time of the year. I've seen numberous studies that were conducted on the survival rate of deer/lope fawns after a preditor 'eradication', the survival rates almost trippled in some cases. Seems like there is a little benifit to me.

So its ok to kill skunks if it saves your're precious (introduced) birds, but not ok to kill a coyote if it saves a lamb or calf on a ranchers land?

I got a question for ya. I'd like an honest answer even though I doubt you have the cajones to answer it... but how many times have you hunted on a ranch that owns livestock? And if so do you still hunt there?
 
Bambi,
last time I checked lambing and calving season was roughly the same time as fawning/calving season.
"Roughly" is correct and ,yes, coyotes kill deer and antelope fawns. There are also studies showing that grazing reduces cover that fawns hide in and mortality due to coyotes is much higher in those areas. Makes sense, doesn't it? Same ol' story about better habitat reducing mortality of young birds and animals.

So its ok to kill skunks if it saves your're precious (introduced) birds
Please quote me where I said it's OK.

I'd like an honest answer even though I doubt you have the cajones to answer it... but how many times have you hunted on a ranch that owns livestock? And if so do you still hunt there?

Hundreds of times and I still do. Most of the places I hunt on private land don't graze public land. A couple do and they do a good job of caring for their own land and their grazing allotments. It's not impossible. I'm OK with public land grazing that is managed well. Remember, though, 70% of BLM is in poor condition due to overgrazing and 90% of BLM riprarian zones are in poor condition due to overgrazing. Makes it real hard to defend welfare ranchers, in general, if you keep those statistics in mind. There are a few good ones. Very, very few in the Owyhees where I do most of my bird hunting. Monday of this week I hunted in a place that I used to see 150-250 chukars a day five years ago. Monday I saw zero chukars and zero sign of them. Well, I did see some droppings that were at least a year old. Mostly what I saw was fresh cow pies and bare dirt where they'd been grazing. Overgrazing has destroyed another good hunting spot of mine and reduced total chukar habitat in that area by about 600 acres. I'll check it again in two years.
 
Ith, it would be interesting to see some pictures of area you hunt on public lands that are in poor shape. I have lots of field pictures, but not appropriate for me to post those shots here.
 
So you're ok with public land grazing now? :D I appreciate your honesty, I find it kind of contradicting/hypocritical when you bash ranchers every chance you get out of one side of your mouth. Regaurdless of if they graze public lands or not.

I know you didn't say it was ok to kill the skunks, but deep down in your shriveled little grinch heart you want to see your birds muliply like rabits. ;) And I don't blame ya.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for ranchers that degrade/destroy the land... I was a little pissed when I went to go fishing one day last summer at my place in CO and the water had so much shit in it you couldn't see 2" into it.

I just get sick of listening to your same ol song and dance. Anyone that spends any time in the west can see where ranchers have degraded the land, but shouldn't part the reason for the degredation be shouldered by the land managers aka FS and BLM??? Isn't it thier job to work with the ranchers?

There are also plenty of studies that state that certain forms of grazing is good for wildlife at certian times of the year as well.

I have a question though. Since we always bash the poor wolf and there is always a reply (usually from you) about how hunters still manage to kill record numbers of game etc....

If public lands ranching was so terrible woudn't we be seeing a drastic decline in the animals that are killed each year?

Sorry for any the misspelled words...
 
Bambi, You said, " I'd like an honest answer even though I doubt you have the cajones to answer it." I answered it, right? Now, I'd like to see an honest answer out of you, even though I doubt you have the brains or cojones to formulate one.

First, a few comments. I don't bash all ranchers, just welfare ranchers. I can't remember ever not putting "welfare" before "ranchers" when I was being critical. I've also agreed with 1 pointer about the benefits of proper grazing. The percentage of welfare ranchers who graze their cattle in such a way to leave the BLM or FS in good condition must be very small, but I do know of a couple.

deep down in your shriveled little grinch heart you want to see your birds muliply like rabits.

I don't hunt pheasants on state game lands, so my only reason for hoping they have good brood survival is so other guys who hunt there will have a good experience and keep hunting there instead of going to the places I like to hunt. That's the main reason I'm in favor of stocking pheasants on state game lands. Besides, it's a good place for kids and old timers to hunt, too. That's fine with me.

but shouldn't part the reason for the degredation be shouldered by the land managers aka FS and BLM???

Unbelievably stupid. I suppose you blame the cops when somebody robs a bank, too. Don't the welfare ranchers always claim they're honest, upright citizens who care about the land they graze and would never abuse it? I guess you think they're not smart enough to see what they're doing.

If public lands ranching was so terrible woudn't we be seeing a drastic decline in the animals that are killed each year?

Another really stupid comment.

So here's my question, if you have the brains and cojones to answer it. Do you really believe the number of mule deer, antelope, sage grouse, quail, chukars and Huns on public lands that are in poor condition due to overgrazing by welfare ranchers has not declined in the last thirty years?

Start with sage grouse numbers. They're a good indicator species.
 
Start with sage grouse numbers. They're a good indicator species.

Ithica,
I Montana the numbers have improved to the point that instead of being allowed to take 2 sage hens a day we can shoot 4 sage hens a day. That is while there has been a long and sustained drought in much of the state.

I would like to see a recent study that has those same stats you and others continue to quote regarding the condition of grazing lands. The most recent I found was done in 1999.


Nemont
 
I've also agreed with 1 pointer about the benefits of proper grazing. The percentage of welfare ranchers who graze their cattle in such a way to leave the BLM or FS in good condition must be very small.
Do you agree with groups that sue to prevent better managed grazing on public lands even considering that if they 'win' management will stay the same as before the law suit? That exact situation has had me confounded for the past couple of years. I will say, things are getting better! :D
 
Do you agree with groups that sue to prevent better managed grazing on public lands even considering that if they 'win' management will stay the same as before the law suit? That exact situation has had me confounded for the past couple of years. I will say, things are getting better! :D

YEs, as hunters, we have a moral obligation to not only agree, but to SUPPORT and FUND these groups to prevent the further degradation of hunting opportunities.
 
Nemont,
The most recent I found was done in 1999.
I doubt there's been much change in seven years and if that's the latest study you could find maybe there isn't anything more recent. It will be big news if a study is ever done that shows an improvement in public land condition.

We were at a two sage grouse limit and a short season until this year when the sage grouse season was canceled, although the blame went to the West Nile Virus. There's been a lot of serious talk about sage grouse being listed as an Endangered Species for at least five years.

1 pointer, I'd have to know a lot more details about those lawsuits, but I agree that it doesn't seem to make sense.

Greater sage grouse are found in 11 western U.S. states, including Idaho. First described by Lewis and Clark in 1804, sage grouse are found in open sagebrush plains; they depend almost entirely on sagebrush for food and protection from predators.

Concerns about long-term declines in sage grouse populations have prompted efforts to conserve the species as well as efforts to list the species as either threatened or endangered. In January 2005, the USFWS determined that sage grouse was not warranted for listing under the ESA. Each state is undertaking actions to preserve sage grouse.

Local Working Groups
Most states including Idaho have developed Local Working Groups (LWGs) to coordinate, fund, and implement sage grouse conservation projects. In Idaho, there are currently seven LWGs:

http://species.idaho.gov/list/sagegrouse.html

Recent surveys indicate there are 2 relatively isolated sage grouse populations remaining in Washington.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/status/grouse/sagexsum.htm

Here's a lot more about sage grouse: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sage+grouse+listed+endangered+species&btnG=Google+Search
 
I've seen ONE sage grouse in Washington, and that was about 25 years ago. I'd say they are an endangered species here.

I take that back. I just remembered a place my bro' and I used to hunt for chukar. We did see quite a few sage grouse there, but just that one time. Never did see them there again. Let's just say they're NOT doing well here. But then, why would they be, we've wiped out 99% of their habitat.
 
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,584
Messages
2,025,972
Members
36,238
Latest member
3Wapiti
Back
Top