Predator calling and trapping justification problem.

W

Wiley E

New member
Steve, I have been thinking a lot recently about our messages to the public to justify trapping and predator calling. We seem to send mixed signals.

For example a recent letter that was sent to the wildlife management agencies from the NTA concerning BMPs stated, "Nationally, millions of tax dollars are expended annually to address agricultural and property damage attributed to coyotes, beaver, and raccoon. "Without sustained harvest pressure, it is estimated that existing populations of these key species will increase by over 100% in the next 10 years"

With Beaver, I would say that statement is accurate. With coyotes dying of mange and raccoons dying of distemper all over, wouldn't it be safe to say that in most situations these populations are at the carrying capacity and trapping and predator calling is mainly "compensatory mortality"?

It seems that we use two arguments that appear conflicting. We say that we need to trap and call these critters to keep them from overpopulating and causing all sorts of economic damage. On the other hand we say that if we don't harvest these species they will just die of disease and starvation. The public thinks, "well let them die of disease and starvation so they don't cause as much damage." LOL! Seriously!

I can find isolated incidents to support both situations but it seems to me that there would be more support for the "compensatory mortality" argument in most situations. That argument being that trapping and predator calling maintains healthier populations by removing the surplus that would die of disease and starvation regardless.

For example, I realize that raccoons are moving into urban areas so there the population may be increasing. We all know that we cannot stockpile wildlife. Certainly there are areas that may have been below the "carrying capacity" during the fur boom that are now nearing "carrying capacity". There could also be areas that are in a recovery mode from the last disease outbreak that would increase 100% in 10 years. Coyotes are expanding into new areas in the east so there they could be increasing by 100% in 10 years. Aren't most areas suitable for red fox and raccoon already occupied near "carrying capacity". I am sure raccoons moving into urban america might be an exception.

For the sake of the discussion, lets stay on 4 species. Red fox, Coyote, raccoon, and beaver. I know each species is unique. I think we have to seperate beaver when making our arguments but the other 3 species seem to be dying off nationwide.

In my opinion, beaver could easily increase 100% in 10 years in many areas due to a reduced harvest level and cause more damage. I see it right here. In many cases, due to the damage, beaver have been kept below the "carrying capacity" during times of higher recreational harvest.

I know many times that you try to remain objective on various subjects but this is one time that I really need your honest gut feelings. How can we maintain a consistent and credible message that justifies hunting and trapping without the appearance of conflicting information.

Your thoughts? Wiley E



[This message has been edited by Wiley E (edited 07-14-2001).]
 
Wiley--Ugh! You have been doing some quality thinking again, not. Excellent questions, but it is going to take some time and thinking on my part to answer them; and I may not be able to answer your questions very good then. I read through your post 3 or 4 times, had a response all put together, and hit the wrong button; down the old sink hole it went. However, that response didn't really do adequate justice to your questions anyway.

Give me a little time; however, I agree there is often a 2 sided logic applied to wildlife management.

How about the rest of you guys; any thoughts on Wiley's questions?
 
Wiley- Here are my gut thoughts. I am just speaking about my area- which has perfect habitat and a good food supply.

1) Coyote- I catch what I feel are a lot of coyotes over a relatively small area. I believe my potential to increase my catch 50% or more can be done just by improving my methods, without hurting the population at all. Over that last 10 years, in say 7-800 coyotes, I have seen only 7-8 that had any mange- and I only threw 2 of those away- the rest just had a small amount on the tail. All but one of these coyotes was fat and healthy. Because of this, I believe that the carrying capacity has not yet been utilized.

2) Red Fox- Because of the abundance of coyotes, our populations locally are way down. Out local population would increase by many hundreds if coyotes were no longer present- so in a way you could say that fox are at their carrying capacity. Right about were you raise cattle here in MN, there are plenty of fox- and from what I hear, mange is present on many of the fox. Statewide, fox is considered to be at such a high population level, that there is no closed season.

3) I agree that the potential for beaver expansion over their range would be great is trapping was discontinued. Look at Massachusetts. In my area- the number of suitable waterways without beaver is endless-beaver have always been a primary furbearer here.

4) I know that distemper and other diseases can take place on coon- but most studies show that these take place in isolated areas, usually not a large region. Increased habitat caused by urban sprawl and current farming practices plays a major role in the increase of coon populations. My feeling is that in cold weather areas- disease epidemics are not as common as in warmer areas- sick animals die quickly- spreading less disease.

So the answers to your questions must take several directions- local, regional and national. There is no doubt that locally populations can expand greatly, without disease playing a role. I would also say, the similar regions would be like affected- I know for example- that for at least 200 miles down the River, on both sides for a corridor of maybe 35-30 miles the same conditions apply to coon and beaver- plus the 1,000s of smaller streams and rivers that flow into Old Miss.

Why do you accept that it can happen for beaver, but doubt whether the same would hold true for coon, etc. Is it because you believe that coon would suffer more from disease at high population points? If so, remember that many "experts" believe that the downfall of the beaver population in the 1800's was caused by disease, not overtrapping. The total number of beaver taken at the time was just a fraction of the available population. If you believe that beaver could and most likely would increase if trapping was stopped, then it follows that the same scenario exists for coon and others.....trappnman (fastball?)



------------------
Your American Heritage- Fur Trapping, Hunting and Fishing
 
A wide ranging subject, with many possible answers.

Just to take a single point, not even posed in the original question. It seems to me that whenever you are dealing with various Agencies and jurisdictions and locales, and segments of the population, you are bound to get different solutions that are pulling in different directions.

For instance:

1)Lions are more abundant in California than in any state.
2)Lions are totally protected in California.
3)Lions have killed more people in California than any state.
4)Lions have attacked more people in California than in any state.
5)California is the most populous state.
6)California spends millions of dollars to buy and improve lion habitat.
7)California now kills twice as many lions under depredation permit, by wildlife agents, than was ever killed by sport hunters before the ban.

Anyone notice inconsistancies in the above statements?
smile.gif


Good hunting. LB

PS The citizens of California recently defeated a Voter Initiative that would have removed the protected status of lions.....go figure.

[This message has been edited by Leonard (edited 07-15-2001).]
 
Steve A., if you get a chance, this same discussion is posted on the link below:
http://trapperman.hypermart.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004536.html

Steve A., don't worry about me and Trappnman (Steve G.) going round and round, we are old buds! We like this game of making the other justify their position!

Tmn: "So the answers to your questions must take several directions- local, regional and national."

Yes that is true but the statement that was made by NTA was a "general statement". To which I believe it needed to include the words, "some", "many", or "most". It didn't!

Tmn: "There is no doubt that locally populations can expand greatly, without disease playing a role."

Yes, but for how long and are those populations at or near "carrying capacity" or are they below "carrying capacity"?

Tmn: "I would also say, the similar regions would be like affected- I know for example- that for at least 200 miles down the River, on both sides for a corridor of maybe 35-30 miles the same conditions apply to coon and beaver- plus the 1,000s of smaller streams and rivers that flow into Old Miss."

Iowa is similar habitat and that study showed conclusively that raccoons are heavily impacted by canine distemper.

Tmn: "Why do you accept that it can happen for beaver, but doubt whether the same would hold true for coon, etc."

Because beaver are not at "carrying capacity" in most areas and are moving into new areas. Beaver are also extremely territorial and the adults kick the 2 year olds out. There is less beaver than raccoon. Beaver are confined to water. In years of harvest, beaver populations were impacted. I floated one river in the spring and shot 90 beaver in 25 miles of river in a problem area. Can't do that with raccoon. Different animal, different situations.

Tmn: "Is it because you believe that coon would suffer more from disease at high population points? If so, remember that many "experts" believe that the downfall of the beaver population in the 1800's was caused by disease, not overtrapping."

Beaver were everywhere back in the 1800's. Fur trapping put the hurt on them big time back then. Beaver are recovering in many areas until they are removed due to their damage. According to the data, starvation kills some beaver but populations appear to have to reach extrordinary levels before disease impacts them. There is more data to support starvation affecting beaver than disease. Trapping generally kept beaver populations below "carrying capacity". The same cannot be said for raccoons

Tmn: "The total number of beaver taken at the time was just a fraction of the available population."

Yes, but following that time once beaver were pursued, early trappers had a heck of an impact on their populations. That is well documented.

Tmn: "If you believe that beaver could and most likely would increase if trapping was stopped, then it follows that the same scenario exists for coon and others.....trappnman (fastball?)"

Not necessarily! Beaver are usually not allowed to achieve "carrying capacity" before they are removed due to their damage. Their reproductive capabilities are also not the same as a raccoon. Female beaver don't have young until they are 3 years of age. Raccoons are currently dying of distemper by the thousands in isolated areas that have surpassed the "carrying capacity" (which includes adequate "space" for reduced disease transmissions). Those areas are not getting an adequate harvest while other areas are. "Compensatory mortality"!

Steve A., by all means, correct me if I am wrong and where I am wrong. You won't offend me, I need to know this! Wiley E


[This message has been edited by Wiley E (edited 07-15-2001).]
 
Wiley-
As we both know, so much of this is pure speculation. We both have opinions, but in truth few if any studies have been done to show what or when maximum carrying capacity has been reached.

Tmn: "There is no doubt that locally populations can expand greatly, without disease playing a role."

WILEY:Yes, but for how long and are those populations at or near "carrying capacity" or are they below "carrying capacity"?

I am missing your point- I look at it like this. Say maximum carrying capacity in Jan-Feb. is 50 adults in a given area. This means that there is shelter and food for this many adults in an average year. After kits- the populations would be at say 300% over maximum capacity. As the season progresses, this number of coon will be reduced through several means to the maximum of 50 that would have adequate food and shelter. (I know I am making this sound simplistic, but believe me I know it isn't).Some are killed by cars, some poisoned by farmers, some killed by other predators during the summer. I now take 2-300 of those coon off the top- and this seems to result in an expanding yearly population. So- I can only conclude that since the expanding coon take on new territory to survive, and survive they do- maximum carrying capacities are not met.

Tmn: "I would also say, the similar regions would be like affected- I know for example- that for at least 200 miles down the River, on both sides for a corridor of maybe 35-30 miles the same conditions apply to coon and beaver- plus the 1,000s of smaller streams and rivers that flow into Old Miss."

WILEY- Iowa is similar habitat and that study showed conclusively that raccoons are heavily impacted by canine distemper.

Unless this study was done on the Upper Mississippi River Corridor, I doubt if it would have much value here. The eastern part of Iowa has absolutely nothing in common with the rest of Iowa- including the Missouri River bottoms. The Black Hills has more in common with Murdo than do east and west in Mn and Iowa. (Remember your advice on homecourt when discussing mangy yotes)

Tmn: "Why do you accept that it can happen for beaver, but doubt whether the same would hold true for coon, etc."

WILEY: Because beaver are not at "carrying capacity" in most areas and are moving into new areas. Beaver are also extremely territorial and the adults kick the 2 year olds out. There is less beaver than raccoon. Beaver are confined to water. In years of harvest, beaver populations were impacted. I floated one river in the spring and shot 90 beaver in 25 miles of river in a problem area. Can't do that with raccoon. Different animal, different situations.

But here in Minnesota- there is water, water everywhere- habitat for beaver is not limited . You, IMHO, are correct in that you say beaver carrying capacity has not yet been reached- because they are an expanding population with habitat to move into. I say,
Coon in my area are not yet at carrying capacity, and they are an expanding population with habitat to move into.
The available habitat to expand into in many areas is almost unlimited- not counting the adaptiveness- dumps, barns, as Robert said old drainage tiles.

Tmn: "Is it because you believe that coon would suffer more from disease at high population points? If so, remember that many "experts" believe that the downfall of the beaver population in the 1800's was caused by disease, not overtrapping."

WILEY: Beaver were everywhere back in the 1800's. Fur trapping put the hurt on them big time back then. Beaver are recovering in many areas until they are removed due to their damage. According to the data, starvation kills some beaver but populations appear to have to reach extraordinary levels before disease impacts them. There is more data to support starvation affecting beaver than disease. Trapping generally kept beaver populations below "carrying capacity". The same cannot be said for raccoons

Note I said "high population points" not populations over MCC. To maintain MCC, disease must be minimal- if it becomes prevalent- most likely MCC were exceeded.

Is this recollection of beaver being decimated by trappers one of those "popular myths" we both try to debunk- or is it fact? I have seen a couple of studies- and no, I don't have a clue where I saw them- maybe on a rainy day I can put my search engines to work- but for now- take me at my word that I did read these reports. In essence, what they said was that given, as you stated the tremendous populations of beaver that were known to exist in the 1800's, and the total number of trappers that actually trapped the mountains, there is no possible way that they could have trapped out the beaver on every possible waterway. While trapping did hurt the populations, it was more likely a widespread disease was in fact more responsible. You should embrace this- it backs up your disease premise on exceeding MCC. LOL.


Tmn: "If you believe that beaver could and most likely would increase if trapping was stopped, then it follows that the same scenario exists for coon and others.....trappnman (fastball?)"

WILEY: Not necessarily! Beaver are usually not allowed to achieve "carrying capacity" before they are removed due to their damage.

What makes you think that coon are allowed to reach maximum capacity?

WILEY: Their reproductive capabilities are also not the same as a raccoon. Female beaver don't have young until they are 3 years of age.

Agreed.

WILEY: Raccoons are currently dying of distemper by the thousands in isolated areas that have surpassed the "carrying capacity" (which includes adequate "space" for reduced disease transmissions). Those areas are not getting an adequate harvest while other areas are. "Compensatory mortality"!

I think you are making my point - if carrying capacity had not been reached- then disease is not usually a problem. I think we agree here. By the way, didn't the NTA letter say that the population levels "would increase by 100% if trapping was discontinued" and not "would exceed maximum carrying capabilities by 100%". I think that the only thing we disagree on is if carrying capacity has been reached or not. I say, with as much certainty as I can, that in many regions, such as mine, maximum carrying capacity for many animals, has not been reached. My definition of "maximum carrying capacity" is "the largest number of animals that can survive to breeding season in the amount of habitat available". This would be the number at which all things were considered- denning areas, food availability, space to minimize disease among other factors.

There is no doubt that trapping can control populations- we see it in many areas. If we accept the above statement, then the reverse is also true.

Well- I can't think of anything more to add, and probably have written way too much as always- except for a by-the-way. I do most of my coon trapping in Dec- Jan. I do understand that maximum carrying capacity, with all its facets, must be determined during the most critical time period- in this case late winter......goodnight Wiley old buddy- tapes will be mailed in AM. Thanks again- Will have list of questions later- hahaha......trappnman

------------------
Your American Heritage- Fur Trapping, Hunting and Fishing

[This message has been edited by trappnman (edited 07-15-2001).]
 
Wiley--OK, I'm going to take another whack at your questions. First, I agree there is often a double standard used in justifying annual harvests. I have seen biologists and administrators do this a number of times in the past, and as far as I am concerned it is wrong and a big mistake. Often there are 2 or 3 really intelligent and experienced fur harvesters around (e.g. yourself, Trappnman, Leonard, and others) that can see through the "smoke and mirrors" immediately if not sooner. Personally, I never said such things, because I knew they were wrong; and there was almost zero data to support those hypotheses. I have been known to leave a Game and Fish director or governor's office representatives holding the bag in front of 300-400 people, when I had data to refute what they were saying. Needless, to say I had almost everyone around here "broke to lead."

OK, well how did I justify seasons. With data. We had data on densities and changes of almost every fur species (some data was better than others). We also had information on population dynamics of all fur species (again, some better than others) to show if we didn't take out X number of a certain species this year, densities of say Y could be expected next year.

So, how to do this? Business-wise the annual harvest is the most effective and efficient, expedient and least controversial means to take out this X number of animals. Most effective/efficient because hunters/trappers will buy licenses, pay their own expenses, and do this for free if given a chance; most expedient because they will do this free harvesting almost anytime they are given a chance; most efficient because they have a genuine interest rather than being a "hired gun", and any other method will almost certainly require use of general tax money. Some things really eat up a lot of money (e.g. bounties) with marginal results.

I always avoided carrying capacity, because it inevitably is too nebulous and too variable to be of much value in annual harvest concepts. It can vary annually, seasonally, and geographically; and it is practically impossible to identify all the variables let alone measure them in some capacity. I think all of us have a feel for the concept, and it is a good thing to keep thinking about. Additionally, we need to identify whether we are talking about animal carrying capacity or political carrying capacity. Often the political part of it becomes active before the animal part of it becomes important (e.g. high and increasing coyote densities). However, over a period of years one gets a good feel for the approximate number of animals in his area, and roughly how many he can take and have the densities remain stable, or go up or down.

Disease/starvation are generally 2 of the shorter term variables (less than 20 years or so) that can certainly change this carrying capacity. This, however, can be highly variable between areas. My experience is that the public expects us to do something about these things, when they occur. If there indeed too many animals as part of the problem, they generally accept a heavier harvest as part of the long term solution.

Nothing substitutes for data in making recommendations for seasons. The better the data, the better the recommendations and the easier it is to justify seasons. Guesswork will only get one into big trouble. When you are up to your shorts in alligators, it's difficult to remind yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.

I think I've droned on long enough for now. I'm sure I haven't covered something. Post back and we'll keep talking.
 
Wiley--Whoops, I have to apologize already. The reference I made in the last post re: "hired gun" could easily be interpreted as an insult against ADC. That was certainly not the intent. I always considered the ADC staffs in the various states as wildlife professionals, and I still do. What I really meant there was that we always try to avoid a situation where we have to hire additional people just to go out and kill things that could have been avoided with better planning. Most ADC people that I've been around are way smarter and know more about animal behavior than 90% of the college professors I know.

Anyway, sorry about the unintended insinuation.
 
No Steve, I did not take it that way. You don't have to get gun shy with me. I agree with you. Why spend tax payer money for a service that some may be willing to do for free. For example, the reduction in recreational fur harvest has directly contributed to an increase in beaver problems. There will always be a need for someone to chase individual problem coyotes in the off season. If there wasn't a justified need, then I need to find something else to do. I can't cuss taxpayer waste and be part of it. That's hardly a problem with all the things we get involved in any more.

Go to the link above and read my last post. Tell me how you would make that statement and how you would justify it?

Wiley E
 
Steve, how would you finish this sentence?

"Without sustained harvest pressure, it is estimated that existing populations of these key species will............?

"These key species" being raccoon, coyote, and beaver.

Wiley E
 
Wiley--I would add 1 word to complete the sentence....change. The amount of change is influenced by way to many variables over a 10 year period (e.g. the original statement by NTA) to make the 100% increase statement reliably. Some mechanics of populations that can drastically influence the 100% increase NTA stated over 10 years is changes in natural mortality rates, changes in overall survival rates by age and sex, changes in reproductive performance by age class and other possible variables, changes in birth sex ratios (a very strong variable), the population level that the 10 years in question started, and probably others that escape me at the moment.

Now, if all these variables remain exactly constant for 10 years, and only the harvest changes; these 3 populations would more than double in 10 years. However, in the real world these variables never would remain constant for that time period. Some of them can change dramatically in 1 year, let alone 10 years.

This is a good example of a statement made to gain some political advantage, and my guess is there is no good data to support it. I sure wouldn't want to be the poor bugger that goes on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News to defend that statement. Alligators for sure.
 
Back
Top