Reducing predators has huge effect on deer.

[Tom]

Its the Kaibab example in Arizona. Look at the chart. They stopped the human predator in 1906 when Teddy R. mad it a wildlife preserve, then that led to them all starving at the Kaibab, the population was not controlled when they stopped hunting there. Hunting was started up again in the 1920s but the spike in deer ate all the food up already by that time.

This chart shows the great increase in deer, prior to their starving from reduction in predators.

There's a note in the chart about the capacity of 30,000 being held, if they would have reduced the herd in 1918, but they didn't.

[ 07-13-2004, 12:49: Message edited by: Tom ]

 

[JoseCuervo]

So Tom, your point is we should not manage predators, and just allow nature to balance the predator/prey relationship? I'm with you on this one.... Thanks for pointing it out...

 

[Hangar18]

Originally posted by ElkGunner:
So Tom, your point is we should not manage predators, and just allow nature to balance the predator/prey relationship? I'm with you on this one.... Thanks for pointing it out...

Agree also. I remember this example from environmental history and biology classes.

 

[Oak]

I thought Tom was arguing that we can't ban trapping in NM because we need to control predators so they don't keep the deer populations low? I'm confused now.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,
On the New Mexico topic, TOm was arguing FOR the trapping of Livestock on PUblic Lands. He and I both sent letters into the Chef in New Mexico, explaining how important it was to be able to shoot and trap livestock on Public Lands. I don't know if they will do any good, but they got sent.

 

[Oak]

Oh, ok. I guess I was confused.

Oak

 

[MarvB]

Why would you send letters to a "chef in New Mexico"...you need recipes or something

 

[Tom]

Oak, you're right. We need to control predators in New Mexico to get the deer population up, to support continued trapping, not ban it, like they have proposed.

US Sportsman's Alliance has the addresses to write and even a sample letter.
http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=1364 is the link.

Immediate action is needed. The anti's are real organized and public meetings are being held this summer for a game commission vote in Sept. 22.

What did you put in your letter Elkgunner?


The point of the graph is that they could have maintained 30,000 deer had they started harvesting them, when the predator control got their numbers up. We would be hunting more deer and predators, in that case, and maintaining the population at non starving and oscilating numbers.

They have invented barbed wire for controlling the cattle now. Trapping is out on them.

What did you put in your letter?

[ 07-13-2004, 10:20: Message edited by: Tom ]

 

[dgibson]

Ha ha, Gunner, that's pretty funny. Let me know when they approve that livestock reduction program of yours.

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

Reducing predators has slight effect on deer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Associated Press
Edition Date: 07-09-2004
An extensive study of the effects of coyotes and cougars on Idaho's mule deer population shows managing predators has an effect on the deer herds, state Department of Fish and Game officials say.

But their research indicates there are other significant factors in deer survival, including habitat lost to development and range fires, weather and elk herds moving into deer territory.

"We can improve an individual deer's chance of survival, but from a population standpoint, we see relatively small gains," state big-game manager Brad Compton said Thursday.

Fish and Game conducted the six-year study in eight game units stretching from Pocatello to Twin Falls. Nearly 1,700 coyotes and 150 mountain lions were removed in four of the units, while the predators were not disturbed in the other four.

The fawn and adult survival rates improved in units where the predators were removed, but overall, the effect was relatively small.

Idaho's mule deer population stands at about 300,000. While that is considered a healthy number, it is about half of the numbers in the 1960s.

When factors such as drought or hard winters decrease local big-game populations, and other prey like rabbits and mice are scarce, the effect of predators on deer is greater. Human efforts to check coyotes and lions also have a larger impact.

Mule deer populations in some parts of Idaho are not meeting the expectations of Fish and Game or hunters. The department is trying to address the problem. Its effort includes appropriate predator management, habitat management focusing on the farm ground idled under the federal Conservation Reserve program and maintaining winter range and aspen stands.

This spring, the department and sportsmen planted 56,000 shrub seedlings as critical food for wintering deer.

 

[Tom]

"When factors such as drought or hard winters decrease local big-game populations, and other prey like rabbits and mice are scarce, the effect of predators on deer is greater. Human efforts to check coyotes and lions also have a larger impact."

"The fawn and adult survival rates improved in units where the predators were removed, but overall, the effect was relatively small."

That sentence sounds like a blond joke. NUMBERS?

 

[Tom]

Predator Control for Whooping Crane and Sandhill Crane
Production at Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Idaho
RODERICK C. DREWIEN AND STEPHEN H. BOUFFARD

Wildlife Research Institute, University of Idaho, P. 0. Box 3246, Moscow,
ID 83843; Southeast Idaho Refuge Complex, 1246 Yellowstone Avenue A-4,
Pocatello, ID 83201


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intensive predator control was conducted during 1977-89 at Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge to support the whooping crane cross-fostering experiment. Reducing coyote and red fox predation on whooping crane eggs and young was the objective of the control program. [Throughout this abstract 'control' refers to the predator control program.] Grays Lake, located in southeastern Idaho, is a large [8,900 ha], high attitude [1,946 m] palustrine emergent wetland dominated by hardstem bulrush [Scirpus acutus]. The 42,000-ha predator control area included the Refuge and all lands within 5 km of the Refuge boundary. Prior to 1977, no predator control occurred near the refuge since termination in 1972 of two compound 1080 stations in the surrounding area. Control methods included aerial gunning, M-44s, trapping and snaring, and opportunistic shooting. During 1977-89, 652 coyotes and 247 red foxes were taken. Helicopter hunting was the most effective method for controlling coyotes [75% of the removals], but accounted for only 20% of foxes removed. Most foxes were taken by trapping [28%] and M-44s [26%]. Foxes increased from 0% of the canids removed in 1977 to 73 % in 1989. Control efforts were directed at canids, but striped skunks [Mephitis mephitis] and badgers [Taxidea taxus] were taken opportunistically. Raccoons [Procyon lotor] are exceedingly rare at Grays Lake. Avian predators accounted for a small portion of the predator losses and were not controlled. Predator control enhanced [P<0.05] hatching success of whooping crane eggs. Only 6 % of 288 whooping crane eggs translocated into sandhill crane [G. canadensis tabida] nests were lost to predation, compared with a 13 % predation rate on 341 sandhill crane nests prior to predator control.
The control program was effective in 11 of 13 years in reducing sandhill crane nest losses to predators. During those 11 years fewer sandhill crane nests [6% of 247 nests; P<0.05] were destroyed by predators. The relationship of predator control with fledgling success of whooping and sandhill cranes was less clear. Annual fledgling success of both species was correlated [r=0.548; P=0.043], suggesting that similar factors affected both species. Fledgling success appears to be primarily affected by extrinsic factors, especially weather patterns that affect availability of food and water during the brood-rearing period. Predator control probably enhanced survival of young in those years when good brood-rearing conditions prevailed, but had little effect in poor years.

What about quail and turkey eggs too? They more than doubled the wooping cranes that survived with predator control, IN IDAHO, using trapping.

It more important in New Mexico because of droubt conditions.

 

[Oak]

Tom, this is just my opinion, but I don't think the approach you should be making is that we need to keep trapping to boost populations of other animals. I just don't think that excuse would fly with the non-hunting crowd, unless you're talking about protecting a specific endangered species (like the Whooping Crane). But in the case of most endangered species, you're going to be talking about relatively small areas, not entire states.

If you want to make the argument that we need to keep trapping (which I think is a good argument), I think you'll make more headway by simply arguing that it's a tradition, way of life,...fill in the blank. Or you need to find some hard facts that dispute the affects that the anti-trappers are claiming. The fact is, most species made it just fine, despite predators, before Man started intervening. If you start arguing that populations need a break from predators, many non-hunters will probably look at the top predator first, you and me.

JMHO, and anyone is free to tell me I'm off base.

Oak

 

[Tom]

I need some good arguments, thanks.

Here's a positive report for mule deer in New Mexico based on killing predators.

http://www.huntingreport.com/hunting_article_details.cfm?id=268&animal=Deer,%20Mule%20Hunting

The International Fish and Wildlife Agencies Association did a study in 19 states where over 4000 animals were trapped, not one was endangered or threatened.

Some people get their pets trapped, that's what started it in New Mexico. Responsible pet owners don't let them run loose. What else on that?

Predator control really saves livestock, I think that's pretty undisputed. Right?

We need to control predator numbers, just like deer. Right? If we don't trap the predators, or stop ourselves from shooting to many deer, there will be none, i.e. no deer. We limit ourselves, we should limit the coyotes more, they don't pay for any wildlife, they just eat them up.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Tom:
I need some good arguments, thanks.

Predator control really saves livestock, I think that's pretty undisputed. Right?

Tom, why would we want to save livestock??? That is what you have dogs, cowboys, and sheepherders for, to scare the predators away.

We need fewer cows on our public lands, and that is why you and I wrote those letters to the Chef in New Mexico, to allow for trapping/shooting of livestock on Public Lands.

 

[IdahoCritterGetter]

We need fewer cows on our public lands

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Tom]

Here's a great report. Page 1-10 is a literature review for the benefits of predator control in wildlife in New Mexico. Other pages cover other animals, cattle and sheep, to save money there too.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nepa/NMpred.pdf

There's another one for farther south in New Mexico too.

Put that in your letter, Elkgunner.

Trap some predators, shoot some deer, etc. Do more of each for a drought to keep it all under carrying capacity.

What did they teach about it Hangar18? You actually had that figure in class.

 

[1_pointer]

Tom- The caption before the graph only mentions the human predator. I guess that's what I'm confused about.

That graph is classic Ecology 101 intro to predator-prey relationships. If I'm not mistaken Aldo Leopold championed the idea if hitting the predators hard, but changed later in life after a few instances like what happened on the Kaibab.

Also, what would make more constant numbers of animals more favorable than ocsillating numbers (with in reason of course)? Herbage/forage production cannot be kept constant.

 

[Tom]

1_pointer, the figure legend says 600 pumas in '07-'17, 74 in '18-'23, and 142 in '24-'39.
Wolves were made extinct.
3000 coyotes in '07-'23.
4388 coyotes in '23-'39.

The graph also points out they should have started hunting again in 1918 or 1920 to maintain the maximum deer herd at 30,000. They didn't know about carrying capacity effects back then. Now, they do.

People know to harvest more if carrying capacity limits of the season are being met.

I posted it to show a great effect of removing predators on wildlife populations.

So, will you write a letter to support continued trapping on puplic land in New Mexico. They might ban it in the Sept. 22 game commission vote.

It will hurt wildlife, livestock, income, and all of hunting, if they do that, I think.

 

[1_pointer]

Thanks Tom, I didn't see that part. MUCH more clear now.