# Deer and coyotes



## cowgirlone (May 9, 2002)

DH watched two coyotes take down a small white tail buck yesterday. With all of the cotton tail rabbits around here, I'm surprised they would take on such a large animal. :shrug: 

We have had coyotes kill newborn calves as soon as they hit the ground. One or two keep the mama busy while the others attack from behind.


Are your coyotes very aggresive?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Maybe coyotes take deer, rather than rabbits, for the same reasons that human hunters take deer; it's matter of energy conservation. A human hunter or a coyote can spend quite a bit of time trying to bag a rabbit, and for only two pounds of meat, while they may have spent the about the same amount of time and have taken 150 pounds of meat.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Coyotes are hard on Deer and Turkey.

I seen them do something I had never seen before.Seen them dig up a Box Turtle out of frozen ground,pop it open and eat it.

Seen a Fox eating Field Corn one time.He got hold of an ear,started rolling until he twisted it off,carried it back in the woods.

big rockpile


----------



## RoyalOaksRanch (Nov 14, 2003)

Coyotes are opportunistic hunters.. they will go after whatever they can. Fawns are a favorite, as are bunnies, mice, etc. Its not uncommon for them to take a deer if they can get one. Matter of fact you can use a fawn or deer bleat to call in coyotes. 
Its not that they are overly aggressive. It just means the deer was a good target at the time. 
I saw some pics on a game cam of a bobcat taking down a doe.. Now THAT was cool LOL....


----------



## moonwolf (Sep 20, 2004)

I've watched my visiting 'pet' fox pounce on field mice mostly for food, but also it digs at ant hills for snacks. 
Lots and lots of deer around make it more opportune for predators like coyotes to take one down, but it's still unusual for them to go for a big buck. I'd guess the buck might have been wounded or something to make it more sensical for the coyotes to even try to kill it for food. Here it's gray wolves in the forests that have deer as their main menu. Like the poster above says it's more economical to get a big meal and invest their energy on an occasional BIG hunt rather than spend time a lot chasing down small stuff, but in reality they do both when conditions are better for one over the other. A wolf will consume in one sitting, the better part of 15 lb. from a fresh deer kill. They stash quite a bit for later.


----------



## cowgirlone (May 9, 2002)

I wish they would leave my barn cats alone.  

One time the coyotes took off with one of my border collie pups. Dang, that made me mad!

I keep my .22 by the back door, ready to go.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Coyotes and all predators will pick the weak and sick. Hunters will always choose the biggest and most healthy. Predators will always improve the health of the species they feed off of. Hunters will always cause a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

pancho said:


> Coyotes and all predators will pick the weak and sick. Hunters will always choose the biggest and most healthy. Predators will always improve the health of the species they feed off of. Hunters will always cause a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt.



=====================================

The above statements which include the word "always" are beyond belief; that's like saying that if you continue to make such comments, someone is ALWAYS going to call you on it. :nono: :nono: :flame: Assuming (and we know what that word means don't we?) that a hunter always causes a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt......we first have to decide if you mean the "individual animal" or the overall population of the species hunted. Again we have to "assume" that the hunter can actually hit his intended target or the individual animal and/or the general population over time......if he misses more times than he connects then your "always" falls flat on its face; also, you forget that the big buck has more than likely passed on his genes to the next generation by the time he becomes ground venison!
So your supposition on the word "always" will ALWAYS fail when you choose to use it.  
We can go deeper if you like: take your statement of "predators will always improve the health of the species they feed off of"....since MAN is the top predator of the world.....then taking your line of reasoning.......every species hunted by man will improve.......try telling that to the passenger pigeon, dodo, and countless others whose "health" in no longer a concern for them.
My point is......to make all encompassing statements with no other alternatives is just begging for trouble.......leave some room for alternatives....as they have a habit of "always" appearing.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Ive rolled more than one coyote while deer hunting . They are constanting running deer around here but deer are thick as ticks. we have taken 6 deer and saturday I saw twenty grazing in the field .
I would have dropped the coyote I saw last week but our pup attacked it and ran it off before I could get a good shot . Sure miss our old dog he would run two miles to kill a coyote . I was really proud of the pup for doing her job


----------



## foxtrapper (Dec 23, 2003)

pancho said:


> Coyotes and all predators will pick the weak and sick.


I've always loved that myth. Yes, the predators perform a health inspection of the local animals before hunting them.  Blood tests, temperature, and a weight lifting competition are all required before the hunt begins.

In the real world, predators take whatever comes within distance. If a healthy rabbit hops up nearby, the predator takes it. If it's a herd of deer, the ones nearest are the ones targeted.

And curiously enough, those same standards apply to virtually all human hunters. Most hunters take the dove, rabbit, deer etc that comes within distance. There are trophy deer hunters, that is true. They are a small percentage of the overall deer hunter population. I have never encountered a trophy rabbit hunter.


----------



## cowgirlone (May 9, 2002)

Last year we had several coyotes with mange in the area. At least this year they are looking healthy.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Once watched a pair of coyotes baiting a mama elk, trying to get at her calf... they don't care HOW big it is if they've got a chance of a meal.


----------



## catahoula (Dec 14, 2005)

copperkid said:


> =====================================
> 
> The above statements which include the word "always" are beyond belief; that's like saying that if you continue to make such comments, someone is ALWAYS going to call you on it. :nono: :nono: :flame: Assuming (and we know what that word means don't we?) that a hunter always causes a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt......we first have to decide if you mean the "individual animal" or the overall population of the species hunted. Again we have to "assume" that the hunter can actually hit his intended target or the individual animal and/or the general population over time......if he misses more times than he connects then your "always" falls flat on its face; also, you forget that the big buck has more than likely passed on his genes to the next generation by the time he becomes ground venison!
> So your supposition on the word "always" will ALWAYS fail when you choose to use it.
> ...


 I think you knew what the poster meant, I know it was clear to me, you just wanted to get into a ----ing match with somebody.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

foxtrapper said:


> I've always loved that myth. Yes, the predators perform a health inspection of the local animals before hunting them.  Blood tests, temperature, and a weight lifting competition are all required before the hunt begins.
> 
> In the real world, predators take whatever comes within distance. If a healthy rabbit hops up nearby, the predator takes it. If it's a herd of deer, the ones nearest are the ones targeted.
> 
> And curiously enough, those same standards apply to virtually all human hunters. Most hunters take the dove, rabbit, deer etc that comes within distance. There are trophy deer hunters, that is true. They are a small percentage of the overall deer hunter population. I have never encountered a trophy rabbit hunter.


Not really a myth, just common sense. It is a lot easier to kill a weak animal than a strong animal. You just proved what I said. The predator will take whatever comes within distance. The weak, immature, and injured animal will always be the one within distance. That is the law of nature. The cripple deer does not outrun the healthy. The crippeled dove does not fly as strong, and the diseased rabbit is a lot slower than a healthy rabbit.
Not many trophy rabbit or dove hunters. What is more than likely to happen is if there is a diseased or crippeled bird or rabbit shot it is threw away and another animal or bird is shot to take its place. Not many coyotes will throw away a bird or dove just because it doesn't look right and there are sure not many coyote trophy hunters.
It might be true you haven't even met a real hunter. If the hunter has to take whatever deer that he sees he is not really the best hunter. The good hunter will pick what deer he wants. A good hunter has the ability to find more animals than just those that happen to fly or run by where he happens to be.
A more true statement might be, you have never met a real hunter.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

copperkid said:


> =====================================
> 
> The above statements which include the word "always" are beyond belief; that's like saying that if you continue to make such comments, someone is ALWAYS going to call you on it. :nono: :nono: :flame: Assuming (and we know what that word means don't we?) that a hunter always causes a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt......we first have to decide if you mean the "individual animal" or the overall population of the species hunted. Again we have to "assume" that the hunter can actually hit his intended target or the individual animal and/or the general population over time......if he misses more times than he connects then your "always" falls flat on its face; also, you forget that the big buck has more than likely passed on his genes to the next generation by the time he becomes ground venison!
> So your supposition on the word "always" will ALWAYS fail when you choose to use it.
> ...


The hunter always causes a decline in the health of the individual animal they hunt. That should be easy to understand. The hunter trys to kill the animal. Killing is sure a decline for the individual animal.
The hunter causes a decline in the health of the general population over time is another easy question. Man will take the most healthy animal and leave the less healthy animal to breed. Not many hunters will pick out the weakest, most immature, or crippeled animal to kill. This will cause a decline in the health of the general population of any species of animals.
You may know a large group of hunters that cannot hit their target. I do not call them hunters. If you cannot hit something as large as any animal you do not belong in the woods with a weapon. Maybe you fail to understand the large buck cannot pass on anything if he is dead, the weaker smaller buck will just have a better chance to breed the does. 
Man is the only predator that hunts for trophys. Man is the only predator that always chooses the top animal to kill. Man is the only predator responsible for the decline of the passenger pigeon and the dodo. Man is the only predator that will hunt a prey animal until every one on the face of the world is gone.
Try asking the passenger pigeon and the dodo.


----------



## foxtrapper (Dec 23, 2003)

pancho said:


> The weak, immature, and injured animal will always be the one within distance.


So it's a gravitational force thing eh? Somehow when an animal is weak or something they just invariably go out there looking for predators to get near. 

Maybe it's "nobility" thing, especially for herd animals. They go out seeking predators to get near in order to "save the herd" with their sacrifice. 

Or could it be tornadoes? You know, they touch down and rearange the animals so the weak ones are always positioned near the predators. Sort of a a hand-of-god thing.

Yes, I can see all that. 

Why I remember when I had a lame chicken how it would go running around the pasture in order to get near foxes. Any time a fox would come into the pasture, there'd be that lame chicken running over to get near it. Absolutely, a law-of-nature thing, just like you claim. Why she'd exhaust herself daily chasing foxes around to get near them. 

And oh, the ruckus she'd raise if a fox or **** went and took some other bird that was closer by. Oh wait, I'm sorry, that of course never happens. What was I thinking! Your law-of-nature thing prevents that from ever happening.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

foxtrapper said:


> So it's a gravitational force thing eh? Somehow when an animal is weak or something they just invariably go out there looking for predators to get near.
> 
> Maybe it's "nobility" thing, especially for herd animals. They go out seeking predators to get near in order to "save the herd" with their sacrifice.
> 
> ...


The old, very young, injured/sick are easier to catch.
Not to say predators don't take healthy animals if given the chance, but being afoot, they'll take the weaker prey.
Also less chance of an injury to the predator. and in small packs, every hunter is needed.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

foxtrapper said:


> So it's a gravitational force thing eh? Somehow when an animal is weak or something they just invariably go out there looking for predators to get near.
> 
> Maybe it's "nobility" thing, especially for herd animals. They go out seeking predators to get near in order to "save the herd" with their sacrifice.
> 
> ...


A little education and a little experience with hunting and wildlife would do you a lot of good. Reading a little about wildlife would not hurt either.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

pancho said:


> The hunter *always* causes a decline in the health of the individual animal they hunt. That should be easy to understand. The hunter trys to kill the animal. Killing is sure a decline for the individual animal.
> The hunter causes a decline in the health of the general population over time is another easy question. Man will take the most healthy animal and leave the less healthy animal to breed. Not many hunters will pick out the weakest, most immature, or crippeled animal to kill. This will cause a decline in the health of the general population of any species of animals.
> You may know a large group of hunters that cannot hit their target. I do not call them hunters. If you cannot hit something as large as any animal you do not belong in the woods with a weapon. Maybe you fail to understand the large buck cannot pass on anything if he is dead, the weaker smaller buck will just have a better chance to breed the does.
> Man is the only predator that hunts for trophys. Man is the only predator that *always* chooses the top animal to kill. Man is the only predator responsible for the decline of the passenger pigeon and the dodo. Man is the only predator that will hunt a prey animal until every one on the face of the world is gone.
> Try asking the passenger pigeon and the dodo.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Case in point people: Sometimes you can feel like you're spitting into the wind when trying to tell someone that using the word *"ALWAYS"* isn't *always* the thing to do....... :shrug: 

Maybe you should rethink your "theory" that I've taken the liberty of underlining above in your diatribe........and think of the early native American; say around the great plains region where the deer and antelope played......no.... scratch that......let's try BUFFALO or to be more precise: bison. These animals numbered in the millions and were carefully hunted for thousands of years; nothing about tropies being taken; everything was used on each animal killed and none were wasted. Still......from the number of "lost" arrow heads, it appears that some of these "hunters" missed a fair number of times......shame that they don't fit into ANY of your nicely compressed theories about man the mighty hunter who ALWAYS takes the very biggest and best for tropies to hang up over the mantle inside their tee-pees ......it wasn't until the white man came upon the scene, sized up the situation and figured out quickly that if we take out the food source; aka buffalo.....the red man will go away.......and it almost worked too. :flame:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

copperkid said:


> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Case in point people: Sometimes you can feel like you're spitting into the wind when trying to tell someone that using the word *"ALWAYS"* isn't *always* the thing to do....... :shrug:


Please note the above post. The same would be real good for you also.
Education will not hurt you. It is painless, even good for you. Try it sometimes.


----------



## RoyalOaksRanch (Nov 14, 2003)

Seems to me someone is just here to stir the pot.... Ignore the little twit and hell go play somewhere else..


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Yes, buffalo were wasted if they were hunted by a buffalo kill area in which they would run off the cliffs...NOT every Indian was able to eat or butcher all of that!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

copperkid said:


> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Case in point people: Sometimes you can feel like you're spitting into the wind when trying to tell someone that using the word *"ALWAYS"* isn't *always* the thing to do....... :shrug:
> 
> Maybe you should rethink your "theory" that I've taken the liberty of underlining above in your diatribe........and think of the early native American; say around the great plains region where the deer and antelope played......no.... scratch that......let's try BUFFALO or to be more precise: bison. These animals numbered in the millions and were carefully hunted for thousands of years; nothing about tropies being taken; everything was used on each animal killed and none were wasted. Still......from the number of "lost" arrow heads, it appears that some of these "hunters" missed a fair number of times......shame that they don't fit into ANY of your nicely compressed theories about man the mighty hunter who ALWAYS takes the very biggest and best for tropies to hang up over the mantle inside their tee-pees ......it wasn't until the white man came upon the scene, sized up the situation and figured out quickly that if we take out the food source; aka buffalo.....the red man will go away.......and it almost worked too. :flame:


I can't understand how you are thinking. You must have borrowed some child's history book. Took you a while to find one didn't it.
What does that have to do with anything you have posted?
The american indian is quite a bit different than the "hunters" of today.
Even they wasted many animals.
Read that history book a little more, if you can find the child again. Read where it tells of the indians running whole herds of buffalo over cliffs. Read how the dead animals were so deep that they couldn't use even part of them. Read how many others were crippled and died later. Read how it was the wild animals that cleaned up the mess that was made.
You have your reading assignment. Try to keep up with the rest of the children.
Hopefully you weren't comparing the american indians with wild animals.

Sorry, just noticed your name, the "kid" part sure fits.


----------



## foxtrapper (Dec 23, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> The old, very young, injured/sick are easier to catch.
> Not to say predators don't take healthy animals if given the chance, but being afoot, they'll take the weaker prey.
> Also less chance of an injury to the predator. and in small packs, every hunter is needed.


Don't fall too far into Pancho's silliness. 

Yes, a sick/injured/etc animal is usually easier to catch, all things being equal. But all things are not normally equal, so it's not normally a factor. What is the major factor is proximity. When a fox trots out into a field the mice nearest him are the ones he is most likely to eat. And that's just luck of the draw. 

There's no magic force that causes weak or sick mice to go seek out fox trails in order to get close to the fox. Nor does a fox posess psychic abilities to go trotting over to the spot a lame mouse lives in before it starts hunting. No matter how much Pancho wants to believe this is true because he's read it somewhere.

If you watch predators hunt you'll see they are very willing to risk injury, even severe injury. Be it in a pack or solitary. It doesn't appear to be risk of injury that causes a predator to attack or not attack, but chances of success. 

Which ends up putting us right back at the begining. A healthy deer, unaware of the coyote hunting 20 feet away is a better target for the coyote than the lame deer 300 yards across an open field. And generally the coyote (or other predator) will act accordingly.

Of course there are exceptions to that sort of thing. I've watched fox come charging through flocks of chickens and ducks and such in order to get "that one". Heck, I watched one just about spitting chickens out of its mouth as it raced through the flock in order to get to the one that was at my feet. A healthy chicken at that.


----------



## catahoula (Dec 14, 2005)

It's called the power of observation, the coyotes simply watch the herd make a few runs through it see who is the slowest/weakest then work that animal into the ground. The more you argue the dumber you sound.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Coyotes have expanded their range to fill the void left by the elimination of larger predators.

Many places, there is an overabundance of whitetail deer.

Mature bucks are often signifigantly weakened after the breeding season, so might be a good target for predators.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

The only time *"always" * works in a conversation about wildlife or hunters is when one finally accepts the certain fact that *"always" * usually only occurs on paper.

Folks who feel the need to defend large predators say, "They [fill in the predator of choice]" *always* takes the old, the sick, or the crippled" as these defenders have something to sell, and there are buyers out there who don't know any better. The fact is that most predators take what they can catch, period.

Folks who feel the need to oppose hunters say, "Hunters only take the largest, healthiest, and best representatives of the animals they [fish, hunt, trap] but these opposers too have something to sell, and they too are selling their view to those who don't know any better. Most hunters, fisherfolk, or trappers take what they can catch, shoot, of trap, period. I say *most* because always never applies

Here at Wolf Cairn Moor we don't hunt trophies, we are not above taking an old buck, but we don't actively "hunt" them. We prefer 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 year old bucks; they are far from mature and will not likely be breeding for another year or two anyway. If we take antlerless deer, and some years we take lots of them, we prefer to take the fawns and let the does go; the old does have proven they can make it through the harsh Minnesota winter, but here too, if we have lots of tags to fill, the old doe will get the second shot after her fawn.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

guys all species of animals ebba flow..crash and burn....if nature takes it course and no man was to kill an animal.then all animals only have 2 chances of death.either be killed by a predator or starvation.they starve if they get old and cant take care of their selves and if they get injured they starve.sad but true.its called population crash.

large predators need to be kept in check...an example is the mtn lion in california.they closee the season and now as a result a species is going to die off because of it.the species is the bighorn sheep out there.they did have about 400 or so and now thare is less than 40 and they are being killed by mtn lions.the govt hunter is being used now to try and kill back the mtn lion.i forget what they spent last year trying to kill a few mtn lions to save the sheep.what a bunch of crap..lets the season be open and bring the things back into check some.

also i showed up in wyoming to a ranch that had a lion kill over hundred sheep in less than a month.there went that guys profit.his only restriction on me to hunt his ranch was to kill all mtn lions treed.i said ok..a mtn lion can kill a full grown cow that has noting wrong with it.so can a pack of coyotes.


----------



## moonwolf (Sep 20, 2004)

pancho said:


> Coyotes and all predators will pick the weak and sick. Hunters will always choose the biggest and most healthy. Predators will always improve the health of the species they feed off of. Hunters will always cause a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt.


This is why it's necessary to have sound wildlife management and understand ecological principals. Practices such as game count estimations, buck to doe ratios, age classes, trophy quotas, etc. ....all go into formation of the regulations that hunters must obide by.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I have seen a pack of wild dogs chasing down a healthy 10 point buck 
wild dogsand coyote can simply out run deer , horses , cattle, sheep,goats,your pets, you, and they work in packs so they don't even need to run that far, like a good beagel they can run them round in a circle like a rabit


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Haggis said:


> The only time *"always" * works in a conversation about wildlife or hunters is when one finally accepts the certain fact that *"always" * usually only occurs on paper.
> 
> Folks who feel the need to defend large predators say, "They [fill in the predator of choice]" *always* takes the old, the sick, or the crippled" as these defenders have something to sell, and there are buyers out there who don't know any better. The fact is that most predators take what they can catch, period.
> 
> Folks who feel the need to oppose hunters say, "Hunters only take the largest, healthiest, and best representatives of the animals they [fish, hunt, trap] but these opposers too have something to sell, and they too are selling their view to those who don't know any better. Most hunters, fisherfolk, or trappers take what they can catch, shoot, of trap, period. I say *most* because always never applies


++++++++++++++++++++++++
At last......the voice of REASON prevails......thanks Haggis.....though I don't believe he even hears you......once that old cliche rears its ugly head, about them thar ****** running the massive herds of buffalo over them thar cliffs.....they forget everything else; why waste all those arrowheads, bows and arrows that took so long to make when you have all these cliffs available to ruin perfectly good meat? Ah yes .....it ALWAYS makes sense doesn't??? 
If by chance you are actually reading (and understanding this) Pancho, et al of similar "thinking".....all I tried to say was that it is foolish to insist that an animal/predator ....ANY predator will ALWAYS do something along the lines of certain "rules of the hunt" so to speak.......nothing more, nothing less. To be bent out of shape because of it and have to stoop to such things as "guessing" on where I might have come up with my opinions/information/knowledge.....well, that is YOUR problem I guess; can't help you there. 
Not sure why we waste time trying to explain things to those who have a one-track agenda....but ignorance is not on my journey or itinerary......ALL ABOARD!!!!???? :shrug:


----------



## poorboy (Apr 15, 2006)

Appears to me as an educated person with NO practical experience, maybe someone trying to build a fire :flame: . Having lived on a farm most of my 59 yrs. I can tell you from personal observation that predators are creatures that use any oppertunity to kill, they don't just wait for the sick or weak, they hunt and take the first thing available. I guess you might call me a predator as I found out years ago that towheads and young does are mighty tasty.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> I have seen a pack of wild dogs chasing down a healthy 10 point buck
> wild dogsand coyote can simply out run deer , horses , cattle, sheep,goats,your pets, you, and they work in packs so they don't even need to run that far, like a good beagel they can run them round in a circle like a rabit


You are mixing domesticated animals with wild life. There is a lot of difference in diet, attitude, and hunting. A domesticated animal such as a dog will kill for the sport and many times not eat a bite of the kill. Many times the dog belongs to the neighbor a few miles down the road.
A wild predator will eat what they kill and if the dead animal is too large most will try to hide it for later. They will kill many domesticated animals at one time but again we are mixing domesticated animals with wild life.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

Pancho,

Not true. There is evidence that animals espically predators do get in a killing mood and kill and kill and kill and not eat. It's been seen in Africa many times and there was a show on cable about a group of people who got domesticated tigers to learn how to hunt again and one day they got into a killing mood and killed so many animals they couldn't eat them all. It was on cable. That does happen with coyotes and wolves on occassion.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Haggis said:


> The only time *"always" * works in a conversation about wildlife or hunters is when one finally accepts the certain fact that *"always" * usually only occurs on paper.
> 
> Folks who feel the need to defend large predators say, "They [fill in the predator of choice]" *always* takes the old, the sick, or the crippled" as these defenders have something to sell, and there are buyers out there who don't know any better. The fact is that most predators take what they can catch, period.
> 
> ...


I have hunted all my life. My first deer was a 10 point buck. I was real proud of it as we had deer meat for a while. I was so small I could not move the deer and had to go home for help in bringing the deer home. I hunted for meat so our family could have meat to eat. We weren't lucky enough to be able to buy all of the meat we liked. Most hunters do not hunt for meat. It is cheaper to buy steak than hunt a deer. Look at all of the big deer contest, the record books, the meat donated to others, and the meat left to rot in the woods.

I wasn't even trying to defend predators. Just stating facts. Predators will take what they can catch. It is just a lot easier to catch a weak, crippeled, young, or diseased animal. Healthy animals are more likely to escape a predator. that is just common sense. If you have two deer running from coyotes they will catch the slower deer. They will not pass up the slow deer to continue chasing the other. The most healthy deer will be the one in front.

Wildlife can control their population very well if man does not interfer. They did it for hundreds of years before man started hunting. There will never be any more wildlife predators than the population of prey animals can feed. both will change each year. When man decides he can do better we see what can happen. First they get rid of any competition. Then they try to build up the herds. Then comes the sickness and the starvation. There wasn't a problem to begin with.

Look at the diseases that have been killing deer in the last several years.

I am a hunter and will probably always be one but I do not think I can do a better job of handeling wildlife than the original planner. Some think they can improve on his work.


----------



## moonwolf (Sep 20, 2004)

a lot of misinformation as usually happens about predators. 
Wolves are not known to normally kill for pleasure. They eat, or store what they kill, to eat later. What an alpha of the pack won't be able to consume ahead of the subordinates, that alpha pair will allow consumption of any kill made to the rest of the pack. Their reproduction is also limited by the abundance, or not, of the food suppy in their niche areas. 
This topic has terribly drifted from the original post about coyotes observed killing a small buck.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

moonwolf said:


> This topic has terribly drifted from the original post about coyotes observed killing a small buck.


Maybe not so much, the question was posed as to why a coyote would kill a deer when there are more rabbits to be had; we have expanded that question to include all large predators, including man.

I don't know a trophy hunter, not one. I do know hunter/predators who enjoy killing deer, they don't eat the meat, they care nothing for size or sex of the animals they kill, they just hunt to kill, and then give the meat to anyone who will take it. These folks are not so common in the circles I've traveled in my near 50 years of hunting, but they are around.

Some canines will kill for sport, it is well documented, some human hunters will kill for sport, that too is well documented, but whether it be canine or human, the vast majority hunt to fill their bellies, and large prey will do that much easier and with less effort than smaller prey, such as rabbits; it is again, the same with humans.

The real issue, for humans at least, is lexicon. Once upon a time there were nobles who _hunted_ for _sport_, and peasants who _poached_ for _food_, the problem now is that all hunters are said to be sportsmen; I am no sportsman and very few hunters I know are true sportsmen, they are the modern day version of the peasant and they now hunt legally for food.

Here in Minnesota if a person owns 80 or more acres of agricultural land they get a free _landowner deer license _ from the state, I own 100 acres of agricultural land so my tag is free. If I hunt and fire a shot, my entire cost for my deer is the price of the shell fired. The coyote above was accused of killing a deer because it conserved enegy for him, I would argue that it takes a lot less energy for me to earn the price of one bullet that might get me 60-80 pounds of venison than to try to earn enough money to buy 60-80 pounds of steak.

As to the cost of my gun; it is now worth twice what I gave for it, so it's not an expense, it is an investment.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

TedH71 said:


> Pancho,
> 
> Not true. There is evidence that animals espically predators do get in a killing mood and kill and kill and kill and not eat. It's been seen in Africa many times and there was a show on cable about a group of people who got domesticated tigers to learn how to hunt again and one day they got into a killing mood and killed so many animals they couldn't eat them all. It was on cable. That does happen with coyotes and wolves on occassion.


I will agree with what you said. The tigers were domesticated. Lots of difference in wild and domestic. A domesticated animal rarely has a need to kill for food. They will kill for just the joy of killing. Wild animals do not have that energy to waste on hunting and killing and leaving to hunt and kill again. The exception would be when a wild animal preys on domesticated animals. They will kill as there are a group of animals. Again the difference is in domesticated and wild.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Haggis said:


> Maybe not so much, the question was posed as to why a coyote would kill a deer when there are more rabbits to be had; we have expanded that question to include all large predators, including man.
> 
> I don't know a trophy hunter, not one. I do know hunter/predators who enjoy killing deer, they don't eat the meat, they care nothing for size or sex of the animals they kill, they just hunt to kill, and then give the meat to anyone who will take it. These folks are not so common in the circles I've traveled in my near 50 years of hunting, but they are around.
> 
> ...



You are very lucky that the people you know hunt for meat and not trophys.
I live in Ms. There are a lot of deer but the hunting land is very limited. Most of the hunters have to lease a place to hunt. It isn't unusual to find several dead deer in the woods each time I go hunting. Some will be left with only the antlers missing. Many are thrown in special dumpsters dedicated for deer only.

One example of a hunter I know (this is not saying all hunters are the same).
He bought a 4 wheel drive pickup, a 4 wheeler and trailer, several rifles, a gunsafe, leased land to hunt, bought camo clothes, bought scents and deer lure, bought a deer stand, bought a device that hooks to the front of a 4 wheeler that will load a deer without getting off the 4 wheeler, bought a few running dogs, bought a tracking dog, bought a heat seeker to find deer in the brush, bought a computer which detects deer when they come within 400 yards of his stand, planted several food plots, bought attachments to pull behind 4 wheeler to plant food plots, bought a mobile home to place on his lease, paid for roads built on his lease, bought a load of corn and a load of sweet potatoes to bait the deer. After 3 years he finally killed one deer.
He doesn't even like deer meat.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

couldnt care less what a coyote might do to deer or wild game , 
But I just got back in from running a pack off that were harrassing our mini . 
didnt turn our pup loose , one one she'd do fine but not against a pack .
They are threatening our stock , so they are going to be thinned out


----------



## foxtrapper (Dec 23, 2003)

catahoula said:


> It's called the power of observation, the coyotes simply watch the herd make a few runs through it see who is the slowest/weakest then work that animal into the ground. The more you argue the dumber you sound.


Yea, coyotes go running through herds to check them out *before* they start hunting.  

And you think *I* sound dumb?!


----------



## foxtrapper (Dec 23, 2003)

pancho said:


> IThere will never be any more wildlife predators than the population of prey animals can feed.


Riiiight. Starvation of predators have never occurred.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

foxtrapper said:


> Riiiight. Starvation of predators have never occurred.


Starvation does happen, usually it happens when man has removed most of the natural predators. Without the natural predators many prey animals are free to reproduce until something stops them. This is usually starvation. If the natural predators are left to prey on the animals there is usually a fluxation of both the numbers of predators and prey animals. If there is an increase in the numbers of prey animals there will be an increase of predators. When there are less prey animals there will be less predators.

According to the National Wildlife Research Center and the research done by The American Hunter "The best experimental evidence is that coyotes only kill those deer that would have died during the winter."

According to the
Missouri Dept of Conservation the coyote actually helps the number of many game animals. The quail, turkey, and duck are helped by the coyote. The coyote preys on many of the animals that prey on these birds. Prey to coyotes include skunks, raccoons, opossums, and snakes.

The best way to hunt predators according to those who do it for a living is to use wounded rabbit calls, bleating fawns calls, and squealing woodpecker calls, or recordings of prey animals in death throes. This is according to Outdoor Life. The main food of coyotes is carrion, wounded animals, sick animals, and kills by hunters. In many areas the predators have learned to follow the hunters and listen for gunshots. They feed on the guts left by hunters and wounded animals the hunter looses.

All of these examples come straight from hunting magazines, I subscribe to several. It isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of most hunters and conservation officers from many years of research. All it takes is reading a little.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

foxtrapper said:


> Yea, coyotes go running through herds to check them out *before* they start hunting.
> 
> And you think *I* sound dumb?!


Now you are beginning to understand. That is exactly the way some coyotes hunt. Contrary to what many people think the coyote does not usually group together in packs. Wolf do that. The coyotes will usually be alone or pairs and in the right time of the year a pair with young. Just listening to a pair makes many people think they are hearing a pack. Until man killed out the wolves there wasn't any problem with coyotes as the wolf will prey on the coyote. The coyote was mainly a carrion eater until man poisoned the carrion eaters leaving those coyotes to breed that were more aggressive hunters. Just a little more of mans ideas before they did research to show they were wrong.


----------



## catahoula (Dec 14, 2005)

foxtrapper said:


> Yea, coyotes go running through herds to check them out *before* they start hunting.
> 
> And you think *I* sound dumb?!


 No I don't "think" you are dumb, by using my powers of observation I'm certain you are. You started in on this thread to make trouble, but pretty much just made an ass of yourself.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

pancho said:


> Coyotes and all predators will pick the weak and sick. Hunters will always choose the biggest and most healthy. Predators will always improve the health of the species they feed off of. Hunters will always cause a decline in the overall health of the animal they hunt.



Are deer, turkey, bear, ducks, geese, etc., populations in decline? No. In many instances they are to the point of being a nuisance. Hunting is regulated by our game departments, which are paid for by sportsman dollars, to benefit the species we hunt. Many sportsman contribute countless dollars and hours to benefit the species they hunt and other non-game wildlife. Hunting and trapping are also used to control the predator populations which prey on our domestic animals. 
As a matter of fact hog hunting is now illegal in Kansas because officials are afraid it will lead to further proliferation of that species.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

tamarackreg said:


> Are deer, turkey, bear, ducks, geese, etc., populations in decline? No. In many instances they are to the point of being a nuisance. Hunting is regulated by our game departments, which are paid for by sportsman dollars, to benefit the species we hunt. Many sportsman contribute countless dollars and hours to benefit the species they hunt and other non-game wildlife. Hunting and trapping are also used to control the predator populations which prey on our domestic animals.
> As a matter of fact hog hunting is now illegal in Kansas because officials are afraid it will lead to further proliferation of that species.


Yes the number of deer, turkey, bear, ducks, and geese are not up to the level they were before the U.S. was colonized. When the gov. does its studies to see the number of each animal they use as a base the population of animals before the U.S. was colonized and before hunters began to kill them. The only place there is an abundance of deer is where they are protected and the predators were eliminated. This is only in a very few places. The deer are closer than any of the other species to precolonial numbers. Turkey and bear are way down, recent restocking has brought the turkey up a little but it is still low, the bear is gone from much of its native lands. Ducks and geese will never be the same. Quail are mostly a thing of the past.
If you will check into where the money comes from you will see the sportsmen pay a little more than half. The sale of tags and license just about covers the amount needed for conservation officers. The other half comes from the farm program. You remember those subsidies that everyone gripes about. They pay about half of the money used to benefit all types of game. It has been that way for several years. With the decline in hunting and fishing the tags and license money isn't much compared to the farm program money.
Hunting has never improve wildlife. It has caused many problems. That is why congress enacts laws determining game bags. The Migratory Bird Act was put into place to protect all migratory and insectivorous birds. With out that the hunters would have made several species extinct.
Tha Lacey Act is another law put into place to protect game animals from hunters.
The Dept of Wildlife has done many surveys and research on the decline of game animals. For game birds the common housecat is the top predator. Coyote and fox are 4th and 5th on the list.
Look at the list of endangered animals. It grows each year. Check the numbers of pronghorn antelope, rocky mountain sheep, bison, red wolf.  Many ducks were becoming very scarce, they had to put a bag limit on most ducks or they would not be any.
Trapping of predators does little to change the numbers of predators. Even when the gov. was paying trappers and the price of fur was high they couldn't keep up with the predators. When the gov. started poisoning the coyotes it got rid of many other small animals and birds but did little to change the number of coyotes. It just bred a more aggressive coyote and scattered them all over the U.S.
There is a lot of info available through many of the gov. agencies. For many years the Council on Environmental quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Forest Service, and The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration go together and put out a book called Wildlife and America.
In it you can find the number of game animals by state and by species,the laws that were passed to protect wildlife, the effects of hunting, predation, insecticides, and any number of things that has an effect on wildlife.


----------

