Dropped that coyote

[PREDATE]

No, deer season is also over

until they eyeball my foodplot! Then it's on like bing bong, Jack! lol

[Paula]

lol

[WNYBuckHunter]

Lol coyote season is over here in NY this post should of ended with it.

The thread wasnt created until after coyote season had ended.

[mike rossi]

I reread 11-0523 and see that section 1 has nothing to do with section 6, the part pertaining to coyotes. However, section 6 does indicate that the animal must be “injuring” property. To understand this you have to distinguish between the DEC definitions of Nuisance Wildlife and Damaging Wildlife, posted below. I retract what I said earlier about section 1 of 11-0523 applying to coyotes, However, even though a permit is not required for a “damaging” coyote, a permit is required for a “nuisance” coyote.

 

The original poster indicated he was concerned about his pets and that after the first coyote there were more to go. If this was in NY... The grey area is whether staring at his pet is considered "threatening" - if yes the animal was "damaging" and no permit is required. If staring at his cat is not considered "threatening" than the coyote might be considered a nuisance which would require a permit to take. Since coyotes are predators, known to eat cats no less, in my opinion he was within the law shooting this coyote. But in regards to his comment " one down and many more to go; he is indicating he plans to take additional coyotes preemptively, which changes the character to "nuisance" therefore a permit is required to take additional coyotes out of season.

 

Refer to both 11-0523 and http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/81531.html

 

11-0523

 

6. Raccoons, muskrats, coyotes or fox injuring private property may be

  taken by the owner, occupant or lessee thereof, or an employee or family

  member of such owner, occupant or lessee, at any time in any manner.

    8. No license or permit from the department is required for any taking

  authorized by this section.

• Nuisance Wildlife - A wild animal that may cause property damage, is perceived as a threat to human health or safety, or is persistent and perceived as an annoyance. Examples include a skunk or fox living under the porch or shed. If an animal is not causing any concern, for example, it is simply passing by, is observed only once or twice and does not cause any harm, then it should not be considered a nuisance.
• Damaging Wildlife - A wild animal that damages property, for example, digs up your yard, eats your landscape plants or vegetable garden, kills or threatens your livestock or pets, fouls your lawn, eats the fish in your pond, damages your home, etc.

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2013 by mike rossi

[PREDATE]

If we were to be nit picky, we could also say that gray area is actually even larger(in this scenario) since the yote was only looking towards a house occupied by house cats.

 

 Yes some coyotes do become a bothersome nuisance and need to be killed, but we as sportsmen especially, should also realize that they're just being themselves,wild animals which are opprotunistic feeders. If we'd just do our best to minimize their opprotunities to kill or mame our pets/livestock then what's left is a healthy coexistance with the top dog of the east. Really a magestic, smart, beautiful animal in my opinion!

[SomervilleSlayer]

Mike Rossie,

 

I agree with everything you posted, including your opinion.

[Elmo]

I'm not sure if staring is considered threatening but I have no qualms about it.

 

I disagree with that taking coyotes does no impact their population.  My theory is that it doesn't impact their population because not enough is taken.  Each species (if it has no predators) will out produce more than the habitat can sustain.  For example, if the habitat can only sustain 10 coyotes while coyotes are producing 20 pups, then 10 will eventually starve, freeze, etc.  Of those 10 destined to perish, hunters are only taken 8.  That's why it seems like there's no impact.  If hunters took 12, then that's when you'll see an impact in their population.  Basically, hunters are not taking as fast as coyotes are producing.  That's just my theory.

[oblivitar]

Last summer i had to chase 2 coyotes away from our property, I seen them outside our neighbors house....maybe 10 feet away from the house at about 2 in the afternoon. Then they came across the street and started going towards our house. I ran in and the only thing i could grab quick enough was the crossbow. Chased them away and called dec. They told me as long as im 500ft away from any other houses or had permission from the neighbors to just shoot them, because there getting bolder and not a lot of people hunt them here. Even when i went out yelling and running at them, they both just looked at me and slowly walked into the woods. Where i live is a little dead end rd nice and quiet, little kids riding there powerwheels cars on the road and driveways. So if one of those coyotes show up again i wouldnt hesitate to shoot em.

[mike rossi]

I'm not sure if staring is considered threatening but I have no qualms about it.

 

I disagree with that taking coyotes does no impact their population.  My theory is that it doesn't impact their population because not enough is taken.  Each species (if it has no predators) will out produce more than the habitat can sustain.  For example, if the habitat can only sustain 10 coyotes while coyotes are producing 20 pups, then 10 will eventually starve, freeze, etc.  Of those 10 destined to perish, hunters are only taken 8.  That's why it seems like there's no impact.  If hunters took 12, then that's when you'll see an impact in their population.  Basically, hunters are not taking as fast as coyotes are producing.  That's just my theory.

What you are saying can mean different things...

 

Of course you are correct that a deep enough cut into the breeding stock will reduce the numbers of the most prolific of species. But what if it isn't possible to take that many over a sustained period of years?  With some animals, I am not sure if it is true with coyotes, a smaller breeding population is more "productive" than a larger breeding population. With those animals a very large take or harvest would have to be sustained year after year. Often  animals (especially coyotes) get smarter or push back into areas were they are harder to take. Participation in hunting and trapping  fluctuates. Any reasonable person would admit that predator control is likely to be a losing proposition. In the studies that show it being effective, it is done in a very structured way and during the warm months when fur is of no value and people do not like being in the outdoors, nothing in those studies suggests the results can be applied to sport hunting or fur trapping.

 

Another thing to consider is if removing coyotes will even produce the desired effect or actually be counterproductive. Any number of things can come into play. Will the surviving animals simply eat better? Are the smarter animals which are harder to take actually the ones causing the problems? In the absence of coyotes will a more egregious predator expand?

 

As sportsmen we need to support the DEC and private conservation organizations in managing wildlife with proven methods and refuse to advocate for other methods which are proven to be ineffective. As far as coyotes are concerned,  regulations pertaining to problem animals are in place and otherwise the animal should be managed as a furbearer for trapping and trophy game for hunting. The public at large who do not shoot or trap and many people on this board do not live where they can regularly see, hear, or take one, and would consider one a trophy. 

[Doc]

One thing is for sure ...... The coyote sits at the top of its domain and for the most part, with only one exception, is at the top of the food chain with no effective controling predator .... except humans. The only other controlling features are disease and starvation, and the population has to be way out of balance for those two controls to begin to have much of an impact. So, to fear that liberalizing coyote hunting limits might jeopardize their population or existance, is probably misplaced fears. In reality, increased hunting may actually improve the lives of those that remain. Without some meaningful control (intervention by humans), the populations would be controlled by catastrophic population collapses through disease. That shouldn't be viewed by coyote lovers as being a good result.

 

The other thing that is pretty obvious is that coyote hunting does not have the popularity that something like deer hunting does. If all seasons were to be made unlimited, I doubt that there would be an over-kill of coyotes. But perhaps we might be able to keep the populations more in tune with the habitat and food supply.

[mike rossi]

Doc, it may be with coyotes, as other animals, the more you kill the more you get  (Errington's Principle of Inversity). Unless as Elmo says, you knock the breeding stock down really far, then you will see a temporary population reduction. You would also educate many breeders and not only is coyote hunting low participation, hunting in general goes up & down in participation.

 

But that's only part of it. The other part is whether or not coyotes are the population limiting factor to deer or turkeys. If they are not the game they kill might be partially or totally compensatory mortality - in other words killing the coyotes wont do squat... On the other hand, wildlife managers have other tools and the money to implement those tools that do work. Private conservation organizations have the same tools and money, even federal grants. Partner ventures between nonprofits & state wildlife agencies are the norm, not some radical idea.

 

When I read (one week ago) online via a Buffalo newspaper, that someone described as the "former president of the NY chapter of the NWTF" is pushing for a year-round coyote season for the purpose of boosting turkey numbers - I shake my head. A couple days later I watch the crossbow hearing and someone with the same name representing a different organization is wrapped up traveling to Albany to testify on behalf of crossbows. I assume its the same Larry Becker... I am not taking a side in the crossbow issue, that is not my point. The guys younger then me and you need to wise up...

 

 

[Doc]

When it comes to the "experts" (the DEC), and what thoughts go into the limiting of coyote hunting to a specific part of the year, I am not sure what all issues they incorporate into that decision. I really don't even know how much actual science is a part of that decision. Hopefully they have well thought out reasons. I have always thought that they see the coyote as a financial resource (a furbearer) and therefore a critter that has a "useful" place in the outdoors like foxes and such. But whether or not they are being managed properly or not .... I don't have a clue. I can only point out that other than disease and starvation, we are the only population control that the coyote has. And given what appears to be exploding numbers along with a low level of actual coyote hunting, I have to wonder if the job is getting done. Perhaps it is the same question that those proposing year-around hunting are asking as well.

[mike rossi]

Even if the numbers are exploding, that does not necessarily mean coyotes are impacting one prey species or another. During the last 10 to 20 years the DEC has cited a decrease in turkey numbers. But why during the same time period a long term decline in woodcock populations reversed. Woodcock are ground nesters just like turkeys, why did woodcock manage to turn around and increase under the pressure of coyotes? The reason is because research identified the problem and then those problems were addressed.

 

The same logic can be traced back to the restoration, reintroduction, and introduction of turkeys - the coyotes have always been there yet under favorable conditions turkey populations took off and expanded their range, in spite of coyotes.

 

When disease & starvation or other density dependent factors are not operating is when coyotes increase and subsequently disperse and expand their range. So harvest mortality would have to be additive to that natural mortality if not, it may actually increase populations.

 

Consider if hunters are motivated or capable of a heavy enough harvest, even with a year-round season? If so, then consider the factors that could interfere with sustaining that harvest: loss of interest, ageing hunters, educating an intelligent animal... Then look at the geo-demographics, where are the hunters and were are the prey species in trouble - NY is a big state and there is no generic approach... Lastly, like I said, it is mere speculation that coyotes are impacting prey species.

 

I am sure you can see that there are way too many contingencies to definitively say coyotes are impacting any prey or even if they are whether harvest is a useful or feasible tool. On the other hand, adding or restoring habitat a few acres at a time reliably produces sustainable, long term benefits. It could be that it is the turkeys that are not being managed properly, rather than the coyotes.