|
Author
|
Topic: Kansas predator loss thread
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:07 AM
Hold on to your bloomers, boys. We got a phone call!
8:15 this morning. I was sitting at the dining room table, minding my own business, when the bat phone started ringing. My pulse raced. A bead of sweat broke across my brow line (and if you've seen my bald head, you know that's a damned big brow line) as I hit the flashing red light and nervously said, "Hello?"
It was Earl in Ohio. Greeted me like we were old high school chums. Called to tell me how much he enjoyed this last article on coon calling in T&PC and find out which e-call to buy. Money was no object. Said he was "really pumped". Wonder if "anyone else" got a phone call this morning tell them that they were doing a great job? Just curious.
Guess that makes me one and one this week as far as people that like me and people that don't. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Leonard,
I think available forage is the key, but then again, I'm not a livestock producer. Just a coyote hunter. And that's debatable.
I've had the privilege of hunting both types of areas. In the sheep country I've hunted, a guy can lay down prone and hunt and the tallest thing in front of you, aside from a few yucca plants, some sage and soapweed, is maybe three inches tall. As my profs would say, you have to have tight lips like a mountain maggot to get at that stuff.
By comparison, fat lipped old cows can really go at it here in the tall- and mixed-grass prairies of central and eastern Kansas. In the next few weeks, after the big bluestem has taken off, places like the Flint Hills will look like any other place from a distance, but get out there amongst that stuff and it'll be taller than you with visibility lying down less than the length of a rifle barrel. Sometimes, you can't even see when calling from high vantage points, but that's another day's fight.
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wiley E
Knows what it's all about
Member # 108
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:44 AM
Lance,
What point do you think you are making with your waiting for phone calls?
You have stated repeatedly that there is no need for predator control in your area and you've basically said there is hardly any coyotes so why would anyone call you with predator problems? Does that make sense in your little world?
Better yet, if someone did have predator problems, why would they call someone who only kills coyotes on 11% of the stands they make and are constantly looking for excuses for their lack of success?
GEE, I WONDER WHY YOUR PHONE ISN'T RINGING???
BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!
Doesn't take much to figure that one out.
I'm pointing out your constant contradictions. First you say your handling your problems then you suggest that you have your problems handled then you say you don't have any coyotes and nobody is calling?
You're making me dizzy talking in circles.
As far as giving credit, it's one thing to give someone credit for something they taught you. It's quite another to present opinions about methods that you haven't even had a chance to apply. Instead of giving credit for methods that you haven't even used, why not just let the originator of said methods write the article?
There's no contradiction. The issue was not in giving credit, the issue is in writing about methods you haven't even used. How the hell can you have an objective opinion on methodology you haven't tested and how can you know whether or not something works when you only call coyotes on 11% of the stands you make?
I'll address the rest of your insecurities later.
TB: "In your honest opinion, if Wildlife services shut it's doors tonight, and Ranchers had to start paying the full bill for a private ADC contractor out of their own pocket starting tomorrow.
How long do you think it would take before the Predator problems in Western States, where Wildlife services is currently active, to drop off to the same levels as those to the East where there are no Government hunters, trappers or airplanes?
These Ranchers hire Government hunters, because they get subsidized on the cost of the hunting. If these guys had to pay the full bill out of their own pocket, just like the guys back East do now, their problem would go away just as fast."
Tim,
First, as Cal has pointed out, all ADC programs are different in the way they are funded. Most ADC programs that I know of are a combination of federal, state, and local dollars. In SD, producers are assessed a head tax on cattle and sheep and that amount is taken out of the general county funds. Basically, the sheep and cattle numbers are used to determine how much each county will pay. That amount is then matched 2 to 1 by SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks from wildlife funds. Then we get some Federal funding as well. Why the public funding? Because the sportsman realize that they are going to have more coyotes to hunt by having someone remove the problem animals in problem areas as opposed to broad based population control methods by less desirable methods.
The history of publicly funded ADC programs goes back to 1972 when the use of toxicants were banned. The government, being sympathetic towards the public's wildlife killing private livestock and the landowners means of taking care of their own problems being taken from them decided to provide a professional, accountable, publicly funded ADC program as a replacement for broad based toxicant use. Make no mistake, landowners can take care of this problem themselves but none of you would like their methods and ranchers don't have time to remove problem coyotes when they are busy lambing and calving.
So, directly to your question, what would happen if publicly funded ADC programs were removed and landowners were forced to pay for the costs of ADC programs? One of two things, either producers would quit raising range flocks of sheep due to the predation, or they would use illegal toxicants to solve their own problems because they couldn't afford to flip the bill themselves. That's what would happen and has happened.
Our job doesn't end until the killing stops. Some recreational caller that kills coyotes on 11% of his stands is not going to be called more than once if even that.
I'm sure some ranchers would fund pay for private predator control but it would probably be large commercial hunting operations that can afford it. See how this works Tim?
You either have ranchers that are subsidized that allow hunting or you have ranchers that can afford private predator control that only allow commercial hunting.
I can argue both sides of this myself and sure, I have a bias but at the same time, I'm objective on this topic as well. When you have the "PUBLICS WILDLIFE" killing "PRIVATE LIVESTOCK" the public has to have some degree of responsibilty when it's the public that won't allow livestock producers to take matters into their own hands.
Recreational calllers want it all ways. They'd like to get paid to remove problem animals without being held accountable for their results. They'd like to see ranchers allow private huting. They'd like to see ranchers not use toxicants and they'd like to see ranchers not funded by the government? WHAT A COUNTRY HUH?
Lance, I'll get to the rest of your drivel when I have more time. I have to go process some cat carcasses.
~SH~
Posts: 853 | From: Kadoka, S.D | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wiley E
Knows what it's all about
Member # 108
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:55 AM
I think we need to start a support group for coyote callers who need excuses to justify their lack of success.
I think we should call this support group "WOE IS ME" and give Lance an honorary membership.
Krusty Klimber used to be a member but he's found the thrill of trapping and gaining self confidence as a result. In other words, he's found a way to overcome the obstacles that were standing in the way of his success in calling. He grabbed the traps. Kudos to Krusty Klimber.
~SH~
Posts: 853 | From: Kadoka, S.D | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coyote whacker
Knows what it's all about
Member # 639
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:58 AM
January 1, 1998
Beef Cows Inventory
Rank State (1,000 Head)
1 Texas 5,520
2 Missouri 1,990
3 Oklahoma 1,965
4 Nebraska 1,930
5 SouthDakota 1,559
6 Montana 1,542
7 Kansas 1,461
8 Kentucky 1,140
9 Tennessee 1,085
10 Florida 1,010
United States 33,683
Top sheep producing states from 2006
State No. of Head
Texas 1,090,000
California 650,000
Wyoming 450,000
Colorado 390,000
South Dakota 385,000
Montana 295,000
Utah 280,000
Idaho 260,000
Iowa 235,000
Oregon 220,000
Total in U.S. 6,230,000
Funny how many of the same states have both in the top ten?Over the past 200 years, the U.S. sheep population has come full circle. From 7 million head in the early 1800's, sheep numbers peaked at 56 million head in 1945, then declined to less than 7 million head on January 1, 2003. At the same time, industry emphasis switched from wool to meat production. Sheep numbers increased slightly in 2005 and 2006, the first time since 1990.
For the record there is nothing my family likes more in the meat dept than grilled lamb chops with garlic butter and salt/pepper ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ February 21, 2007, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: coyote whacker ]
--------------------
This is done on my time and my dime. My views may differ from those of others!
Posts: 376 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
slydog
Knows what it's all about
Member # 389
|
posted February 21, 2007 08:43 AM
Leonard,
I'm with you, I remember when flocks were all over Northern NEV., SW Idaho, SE Or., Montana and Wyoming. That was back in the day. Many of the ranchers I do work for have gone the way of cattle. Less work more money. I do 80% of the depridation work on ranches where they used to raise sheep (Basque ranchers). Even though they don't suffer the losses with cattle that they did with sheep they still have the hate for the coyote.
I damn sure don't hate the coyote but with the onslot of new hunters, all lookin for ground to hunt I find myself hunting the coyotes harder on the ranches in order to keep the ground.
It seems my phone rings on a "When they see them basis". I just hate the May-August calls. Seems over the last few years, those calls have picked up quite a bit.
I sure don't eat mutten but I sure like my wool.. I'd Rather eat Elk.
sly
--------------------
Smote the Yote with a slydog custom call
Posts: 179 | From: SW Idaho | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
UTcaller
NEVADA NIGHT FIGHTER
Member # 8
|
posted February 21, 2007 08:50 AM
CW:For the record there is nothing my family likes more in the meat dept than grilled lamb chops with garlic butter and salt/pepper
Ain't that the truth. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Chad
Posts: 1612 | From: Utah | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rich
2,000th post PAKMAN
Member # 112
|
posted February 21, 2007 09:43 AM
"Recreational calllers want it all ways. They'd like to get paid to remove problem animals without being held accountable for their results. They'd like to see ranchers allow private huting. They'd like to see ranchers not use toxicants and they'd like to see ranchers not funded by the government? WHAT A COUNTRY HUH?"
---------------------------------------
Scott,
I hope you don't think that ALL recreational callers feel that way. I don't.
--------------------
If you call the coyotes in close, you won't NEED a high dollar range finder.
Posts: 2854 | From: Iowa | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 09:58 AM
Scott,
Been checking out that 11%. A lot of KS callers are behind me and agree that that's a pretty fair assessment. Like I said last night, probably a good thing you don't live in KS. I never said we had good coyote hunting. But, it's where I live and where I hunt. Puttin' by and makin' due.
Offering up all the kudos that people give the likes of you in areas where your coyote numbers are so much higher and they're more easily called than here is a mistake as far as I'm concerned. After all, anyone can catch a chicken in a hen house.
Calling a state like Kansas where it's a true challenge only serves to make you better as you have to work your way through the challenges with which you're faced. That's maybe why those two Kansas boys smacked you down at St. Francis two years in a row. I'm just saying,...
"What point do you think you are making with your waiting for phone calls? "
Why, I'm trying to prove your point, Scott. You stated that it's your (informed) opinion that we have a problem and that we're undergunned in dealing with it. Isn't that the inference you've made all along? Who else but you would possibly know that? Certainly not me. I just live here. The numbers will tell us for sure. Of course, this isn't a truly scientific study - purely anecdotal at best - but it reflects this area where I hunt as good as anything anyone else is doing to evaluate the need for hired guns. And since that's all I really am concerned about, that's what I'll address.
"Better yet, if someone did have predator problems, why would they call someone who only kills coyotes on 11% of the stands they make and are constantly looking for excuses for their lack of success?"
As has been clearly pointed out on numerous previous responses, in those instances where I have been asked to come out and target specific coyotes in specific locations, that number rises from 11% (which reflects the season-wide numbers) to nearly 84% kill rate (specifically hunting to assist landowners) and satisfaction rate for the producer. I guess if they actually paid me to do the job, I may have run that last one down, too. Instead, I put in my forty-plus hours a week working for Uncle Sam and try to fit them in around a wife and kids, a taxidermy business, callmaking, and writing. Did you know I wrote? You'll need to read some of my stuff.
"GEE, I WONDER WHY YOUR PHONE ISN'T RINGING???"
Maybe because there isn't a problem to call about. Won't know until all the numbers are in. Keep checking in!
"First you say your (should be 'you're) handling your problems then you suggest that you have your problems handled.."
Isn't that redundant? Talk about circles!!!
"...then you say you don't have any coyotes and nobody is calling?"
I've stated repeatedly that we have lots of coyotes. What we don't have is lots of coyotes responding to calls. For me, or anyone else for that matter.
Nobody is calling (I presume you mean via phone) because NO PROBLEMS ARE OCCURRING. If you mean nobody is calling coyotes, there are a lot of guys trying, but not many had much luck this year. But, again, you'd know more about local success rates than I would, wouldn't you?
"You're making me dizzy talking in circles."
Same back at you, li'l buddy. See redundant remark above.
"why not just let the originator of said methods write the article?"
I don't know why they didn't write them themselves. They'll have to speak to that, and I certainly wish they would so we could at least wrap up one segment of this round and round. What I do know is that I write and I was approached by them, or an associate of theirs, to write the piece. Again, as I tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to point out last night, that's how the magazine business is done. Writers write about other people for feature articles, otherwise we'd all eventually come across as self absorbed... like some people.
Would someone please explain to me the confusion with this? It seems rather self-explanatory to me.
"The issue was not in giving credit, the issue is in writing about methods you haven't even used."
In fact, I have used those methods. Except for going to Africa. Haven't done that yet. Not on my radar today, but there's always tomorrow.
My results in using those methods were successful enough in a relatively short span (mean = 1.5-2 years use, or 500 stands) of time that I felt they had merit. At the same time, the people featured in those articles are very credible and highly respected in the industry. Maybe part of that is that they don't always have to come off as knowing everything, all the time, and are cordial in their social skills. That is always a plus when you want a little respect, ya know?
I think if you can stomach going back and reading those articles you will find that the focus of the piece was on the technique and the person(s) who is best known for using it. Any accountings I offered up were only supportive in nature and I didn't really take any credit for thinking up any particular aspect of the technique. I used my own personal anecdotal accounts because 1) I wasn't with the contributor when they had their experiences (what I get paid making those fast bucks makes traveling to AZ cost prohibitive), and 2), it gives the article a little variety and to show it work(ed) for more than just the guy being featured, and in places other than just AZ or CA.
"when you only call coyotes on 11% of the stands you make?"
You lose your gold star, Scott. I told you I made 246 stands this year, called 74 coyotes, and killed 28. By my math, that equates to calling coyotes on 30.08% of stands called, and killing coyotes on 11.38% of total stands. Looking at things from the perspective that you can only kill coyotes when coyotes are seen, you would have to calculate the percentage killed based upon the total seen, or 28 kills of 74 seen, or a kill percentage of 37.83 percent.
Restating those numbers in figures like most recreational callers tally, that means I called coyotes at a rate of one in every three stands (damned impressive for this part of Kansas) and of those called, killed better than one in three. Admittedly, those numbers look better than they are since a fair share of them responded as multiples and only one of the bunch was killed. I didn't score any double this year, sadly enough.
Do they teach fuzzy math at U of SD?
"I'll get to the rest of your drivel when I have more time. I have to go process some cat carcasses."
I'll still be here! Oh, and CAT, IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER!!!
In the meantime, I have three European mounts in the shop that need finishing.
Today, I think I'm a taxidermist!!!
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coyote whacker
Knows what it's all about
Member # 639
|
posted February 21, 2007 12:51 PM
Cdog ytou need to do a little research on coyote numbers harvested per state.
Here is what you wrote: Like I said last night, probably a good thing you don't live in KS. I never said we had good coyote hunting. But, it's where I live and where I hunt. Puttin' by and makin' due.
Offering up all the kudos that people give the likes of you in areas where your coyote numbers are so much higher and they're more easily called than here is a mistake as far as I'm concerned. After all, anyone can catch a chicken in a hen house.
You then went on to write: I've stated repeatedly that we have lots of coyotes. What we don't have is lots of coyotes responding to calls. For me, or anyone else for that matter.
See how that is misleading?
Then look at the figures for the states 2003-2004 Annual Kansas Fur Harvest report 25,407 killed statewide and bought by in state furbuyers 13,194
Compair that with South Dakota from Fur dealer records in state coyotes purchased 4,791.
So your calling can't be all that bad can it? Coyotes can be called in any state at any time, weather, methods used, effort put in and knowing the lay of the land and some times of the year being much better than ohters all plays into your outcome.
--------------------
This is done on my time and my dime. My views may differ from those of others!
Posts: 376 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 02:38 PM
CW,
I've missed very few of those KFHA fur auctions. Used to be an officer. And from what I've seen and been told by the guys there selling fur, the vast majority of those coyotes are taken by traps. In fact, I was pretty much chastised by KFHA as a whole a couple years ago because "all (he) ever writes about is calling, and not trapping anymore."
Another major mortality factor as far as hunting goes involves dog wagons. I know of seven different dog wagons right here in my town. In the last ten days out, we couldn't find a single piece of ground that didn't have fresh tire tracks going in and out. If it isn't the dog wagons, it's the other guys running them with trucks.
Unlike Rich Cronk, I don't get too bent out of shape over these guys. I certainly understanding his position on them and could easily take that same stance, but I cut my teeth hunting coyotes tied to the front seat of my dad's Chevy with a length of rope and see it as somewhat hypocritical to trash them when I was once one of them. In fact, I still consider that type of hunting a lot of fun. Just can't afford the truck, the gas or the dogs.
You said that I said, "You then went on to write: I've stated repeatedly that we have lots of coyotes. What we don't have is lots of coyotes responding to calls. For me, or anyone else for that matter."
Again, we have lots of coyotes. Allow me to reiterate for the challenged amongst us: our response rates here are slightly different than what I suppose you have where you're at. I know that they're vastly different than what I've observed in both Colorado and Nebraska. I stay in pretty much regular contact with no less than twenty to thirty callers in and around my area and think I have a pretty good handle on what, if anything, is working. I don't seen the need to try again in explaining why our hunting drops off precipitously in January and how others that exploit the resource factor into that since all you "pros" regard it merely as excuses. I've seen nothing to indicate to me that any of you could do any better.
"So your calling can't be all that bad can it? Coyotes can be called in any state at any time, weather, methods used, effort put in and knowing the lay of the land and some times of the year being much better than ohters all plays into your outcome."
Prior to the time when the ground freezes hard and makes it possible for the dog wagons to get all about, it can be pretty good. I agree with your statement. Later in the season when a lot of you guys in the areas where I really like to go hunting have things pretty good because of the coyote's increased willingness to respond to vocalizations, etc., and when the cold sharpens their responses to prey, other negative factors come into play in this area offsetting any benefits derived from those factors in the coyote's life.
That's not an excuse. For me, or anyone else. It's a fact of life, an accurate one, that each and every one of us around here contend with each year.
"South Dakota from Fur dealer records in state coyotes purchased 4,791."
That's all the more you guys sell in coyotes? I must say that I am surprised by that. How many were killed and not sold? Couple hundred thousand? Otherwise, I'd think you'd be hard pressed to convince reasonable people that you suffer an infestation.
Assuming that you do have the problems outlined, then that just goes to show you that just because you have coyotes doesn't necessarily mean you have a coyote problem, regardless of how you spin the data to validate your vocation.
[ February 21, 2007, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Cdog911 ]
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 02:50 PM
UPDATE TIME:
Phone calls: 0
Kills reported: 0
Calls from people that like me: 2 (Thanks, Tom)
Correspondence from those that do not: 1 (Still just Scott)
And from the field, Matt just walked in... he's unaware of any kills either.
All is well. Another day that our landowners have been spared financial ruin and carnage.
Oh, the satisfaction of a job well done!
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coyote whacker
Knows what it's all about
Member # 639
|
posted February 21, 2007 03:13 PM
No spinning of data it is as written. You have alot of mangy coyotes that get left, mange can run as high as 70% in areas pink bellys mean little value anything worse than that they get left in the pastures and creek draws.A couple hundred thousand LOL!
You don't think coyotes account for an economic impact on sheep and cattle producers in the US? Plenty of facts to back it up!
Assuming that you do have the problems outlined, then that just goes to show you that just because you have coyotes doesn't necessarily mean you have a coyote problem, regardless of how you spin the data to validate your vocation.
No spinning the data, the facts are there.
Dog wagons do you mean gray hounds? Site dogs? How do they see through all of your waste high cover? Or are these some kind of heavy cover rooting dog breed?
You wrote: I use a technique I learned from Higgins and see many multiples and generally am able to get one from the bunch. This year, I had several instances where I called 4 and 5 coyotes at a time. Because this isn't open range country like you enjoy, you generally get one shot and the survivors are six feet to heavy cover. Most of my shots are within fifty yards. Rarely over a hundred.
I would think they hear a truck and see a box of dogs they would just hop that 6 ft to heavy cover? Not to be seen by the huntin crew?
[ February 21, 2007, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: coyote whacker ]
--------------------
This is done on my time and my dime. My views may differ from those of others!
Posts: 376 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted February 21, 2007 04:32 PM
quote:
Dog wagons do you mean gray hounds? Site dogs? How do they see through all of your waste high cover?
That's an interesting point, cw.
[ February 21, 2007, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31450 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rich Higgins
unknown comic
|
posted February 21, 2007 04:39 PM
quote:
I don't know why they didn't write them themselves. They'll have to speak to that, and I certainly wish they would so we could at least wrap up one segment of this round and round. What I do know is that I write and I was approached by them, or an associate of theirs, to write the piece.
I've never written an article for the two publications that Lance writes for because they have never asked me and I have never approached them with an offer or request. I wrote a chapter for Gerry's book because he asked me to. I'm writing an article for Predator Extreme because Ralph asked me to. I've been written about in sixteen magazine articles in four publications and I have never approached Lance or anyone else and asked them to write about me.
That said, when Lance has asked me to contribute to any of his articles, whether I am mentioned in said article or not, I have found that he goes to great lengths to ensure that everything he writes is accurate. He sends copy for proof reading and makes the recommended corrections until it is absolutely right. I like that and it makes me trust the accuracy of all of his articles. I also believe he is a talented writer and I read everything with his by-line.
Scott is a friend of mine and I trust him and know him to be absolutely honest and factual in his writings as well. This is a clash of personalities that could be easily resolved by spending a day hunting with each other.
IP: Logged
|
|
DAA
Utah/Promoted WESTERN REGIONAL Hunt Director
Member # 11
|
posted February 21, 2007 04:58 PM
"This is a clash of personalities that could be easily resolved by spending a day hunting with each other."
No doubt, the personality clash would be resolved. Which one are you betting on?
- DAA
--------------------
"Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em." -- George Hanson, Easy Rider, 1969.
Rocky Mountain Varmint Hunter
Posts: 2676 | From: Salt Lake City, UT | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted February 21, 2007 05:24 PM
quote:
So, directly to your question, what would happen if publicly funded ADC programs were removed and landowners were forced to pay for the costs of ADC programs? One of two things, either producers would quit raising range flocks of sheep due to the predation, or they would use illegal toxicants to solve their own problems because they couldn't afford to flip the bill themselves. That's what would happen and has happened.
No shit? When and where? Have you ever had a trapper ask you "What's an M-44?" $10 says that if the question came from an adult, it was an Eastern Trapper who asked. Eastern trappers have never had Government funded Wildlife services, and yet somehow they have never had a problem with people using illegal toxicants.
Western trappers, who have to live around the Government trappers can tell you exactly what an M-44 is, and Most of them will tell you that they are bad news, as we both know that they not only kill a lot of coyotes, but they kill all wildlife. (Did I mention that they can be hell on cattle as well ?)
quote:
I can argue both sides of this myself and sure, I have a bias but at the same time, I'm objective on this topic as well. When you have the "PUBLICS WILDLIFE" killing "PRIVATE LIVESTOCK" the public has to have some degree of responsibility when it's the public that won't allow livestock producers to take matters into their own hands.
I agree. And if there really was a problem with Public Wildlife killing Private stock ( Such as the problems related to the relocation of wolves ) I think it is only fair for the Government to step in and give aid. But did you look at coyote whacker's Numbers? At best, South Dakota only kills 1/3 the number of coyotes that Kansas does. So why does South Dakota have a coyote problem, and Government funded ADC, while Kansas has no problem, and no Government funded ADC?
quote:
In SD, producers are assessed a head tax on cattle and sheep and that amount is taken out of the general county funds. Basically, the sheep and cattle numbers are used to determine how much each county will pay. That amount is then matched 2 to 1 by SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks from wildlife funds. Then we get some Federal funding as well.
I'm well aware of how "Tip off" dollars work. Thanks to folks like MidwayUSA, the NRA is the strongest pro-gun lobby in the world. And if memory serves, You and Dr Jones ( Ster600 ) brought the idea to the NTA and saved them from Bankruptcy a few years ago ( In case I've never told you, Thank You. I really appreciate that saving grace ) The big difference is that both Midway and Moyle's, make it voluntary, SD and WY make it a mandatory tax. People who are forced to pay a tax are more likely to demanded the services that it funds, than are the people who pay the same tax voluntarily. That's just simple human nature.
And is it any wonder that you are funded 2/3's by the Fish and Game? What's worth more, an Antelope tag or a Sheep? F&G doesn't care any more about protecting sheep than do most Americans. They fund you because Coyotes are major predators for Antelope Fawns. The hell with the sheep, the money is to be found in Cattle and Antelope, but it's not a bad idea to force the sheep herders help fund antelope protection.
quote:
You either have ranchers that are subsidized that allow hunting or you have ranchers that can afford private predator control that only allow commercial hunting.
Wake up and get a grip! Take a look at those numbers that coyote whacker posted again. Look at those top producing States, like Texas. When is the last time you heard a Texan whine about easy hunting access? They have Wildlife services, and yet the nearly the entire state is under a hunting lease. But if you go to States with out Wildlife services, you find land owners willing to FREELY allow hunters on their land.
Simply put, The USDA Wildlife Services, does very little to help the public who funds it, but screws many hardworking Americans out of land to hunt. You guys fly an airplane to kill coyotes, ( Something illegal for most of us ) and ruin a good calling area for everyone else. You use toxicants that are illegal for everyone else, and when you are caught killing non-target animals, such as big game and livestock. You quickly blame the deaths on coyotes and ask for more funding. Hell, you guys are the experts, who is qualified to argue?
quote:
I can argue both sides of this myself
Me too. But it's time to fix dinner.
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:06 PM
CW,
Your 1997 numbers on beef cattle ratings are erroneous. See this page...
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/NCRbeef.html
According to this, Kansas ranks #3 behind Texas and Nebraska. According to the reports being issued during this winter's blizzard in western Kansas and eastern Colorado, Kansas is now the #2 producer in the U.S., second only to Texas. Not that it's important to the present discussion, but you guys seem awfully tight on accurate numbers.
"You don't think coyotes account for an economic impact on sheep and cattle producers in the US? Plenty of facts to back it up!"
Not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was," Assuming that you do have the problems outlined...", meaning that I have to go on good faith that any figures you cite are accurate. At this point, and in the absence of figures to refute your claims, I agree with yours. Nothing meant beyond that.
Then, I went on to say, "then that just goes to show you that just because you have coyotes doesn't necessarily mean you have a coyote problem,...". Are you willing to argue this logic? We've got a lot of coyotes and few, if any, real problems. Nuisances, yes. Problems, no. Not all coyotes are problematic nor do they all cause damage.
"Dog wagons do you mean gray hounds? Site dogs? How do they see through all of your waste high cover? Or are these some kind of heavy cover rooting dog breed?"
No, I mean greyhounds (actually usually greyhoundXwolfhound/ stag hound crosses although I've hunted with one cast that was greyhoundX great daneXwolf hybrids. Damned impressive dogs.) and yes, the proper term for these dogs, or at least, that which is most often used is sight hounds, named as such because they hunt solely by sight. Also, it's waist high grass, and actually, it's often taller than that.
Again, you try to spin another point by preying upon the fact that a lot of people here have never coursed coyotes using sight hounds, nor are they familiar with the way the habitat is arranged here in Kansas. Allow me to refute your remark with the facts.
In this area, sight hound hunting is popular. The region is broken up into one mile-squares by a criss-crossing of county roads and highways. Each of those sections is broke into four equal quadrants by hedgerows, or treelines made of osageorange and locust trees from back in the CCC days and to prevent soil erosion from wind. With me so far?
Much of this area is considered agricultural desert with row crops, winter wheat and bare ground devoid of suitable wildlife habitat. Another significant part of it is in rangeland, tracts usually a quarter-section in size and occasionally as large as a full square mile. Much of this country is grazed on a rotational basis and by winter, the grass will range from down to the nubbin to as high as your shoulders, depending upon whether it was utilized that year.
Of course, we cannot forget the CRP grass. In your areas, CRP may be a stubby growth of grass varieties with a dense enough root system to lock down soil and prevent soil erosion. In this area - known as the tallgrass prairie - predominant species include such grasses as big bluestem (aka turkeyfoot) and ****** switchgrass. Both of these species are well known to grow over eight feet tall and so dense that it's even difficult to drive a pickup through it. In fact, several years ago, one of my ranchers came up missing a bull. they found it dead in the bluestem, but only after driving around in it all morning in a tractor with a guy standing atop the cab where he could see down into the grass.
Keeping this in mind, your remarks show me that you've never coursed coyotes before, have you? If the dogs do not see the coyote, they won't take chase. Same for racing greyhounds which I spent several summers in high school training.
The coyotes live in the ravines, CRP, creeks and thick range grasses. (I'm explaining this in as simple of terms as I can. Hope it helps.) The strategy is for the dog wagons or other vehicles (many around here use ATV's with whip antennas and flags so others can keep track of them) to drive into and along the heavy cover to drive the coyotes out, while other dog wagons and trucks encircle the section as spotters.
When a coyote is spotted, the hunters communicate via radios and the trucks move to force the coyote into open country near a dog wagon. If they are successful and get the coyote onto a half section of frozen winter wheat, alfalfa or other open ground situation, the dog wagon will "get a race" on the coyote where the driver goes as fast as he can (sometimes as fast as 60-75 mph) across the open ground on an intercept course. At some point, the sight hounds, whose heads are out of openings in the sides of the dog box, spot the coyote and are very much ramped up for the chase.
Once the coyote is lined out, moving across open country and the dog wagon can get close enough, the driver hits the brakes and, once he's slowed down for the dogs to safely bail, pulls cables behind his or the passenger's head that cause the spring loaded doors to fall open and the dogs on that side bail out and take chase.
THIS MUST BE DONE ON RELATIVELY OPEN GROUND WITH AS LITTLE COVER AS POSSIBLE. If the coyote goes into cover and out of sight, the sight hounds will literally stop where they are and start smelling each others' asses. Greyhounds are really not that bright.
You see how ridiculous your attempt to mislead the discussion sounds? Good try. And, no, a lot of the cover I call around isn't the same cover that they drop the dogs in. But, it IS the cover they drive with the trucks and ATV's to force the coyote from.
"I use a technique I learned from Higgins and see many multiples and generally am able to get one from the bunch. This year, I had several instances where I called 4 and 5 coyotes at a time. Because this isn't open range country like you enjoy, you generally get one shot and the survivors are six feet to heavy cover. Most of my shots are within fifty yards. Rarely over a hundred."
Let me guess... any arguments you've offered regarding the original topic and solid facts have been debunked so now you are left to question my personal experiences? If you were there, somewhere in the bush, with me, you've got an opinion. If not, and I didn't see you, what's your point?
The difference between you and me is that I have hunted the sandhills and high plains regions and have acquired some experience in that sense. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have the foggiest idea about how this region is laid out, nor how that applies to calling coyotes.
Again, this looks like another instance of a western hunter viewing all calling through the experience he's garnered out west, then imposing that myopic view on all callers, regardless of where they reside, not realizing that the two are apples and oranges.
I've got the names and phone numbers of people who have been here and hunted this region. Some of them are easily recognizable, even to you. If you like, I can send them to you and you can call them to see if it's me that is delusional or just you. LOL
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:07 PM
One more thing.
Another phone call. Someone who likes me. LOL
Should I add CW to the "dislike" column to even things up?
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coyote whacker
Knows what it's all about
Member # 639
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:12 PM
Wow Tim you go boy LOL!
Tim: Western trappers, who have to live around the Government trappers can tell you exactly what an M-44 is, and Most of them will tell you that they are bad news, as we both know that they not only kill a lot of coyotes, but they kill all wildlife. (Did I mention that they can be hell on cattle as well ?)
First off m-44's are very selective and only work with a bite/pull response, secondly you "rock" them in! Good m-44's applicators just don't pop them in the ground and go. By using them in the right manner non target pulls outside of canids are very,very low. There is NO I repeat No secondary poisoning from there use. 26 use restrictions must be followed. Also there are private applicators as well, there are landowners that can get licensed for there use as well! Not a fur tool by any means!!! They are a great tool when you have a producer many miles way as a time saver,fuel saver and can cover more complaints when shit hits the fan.Making a guy more productive and stopping loss quicker in many regards.
Scott can add much more.
And if there really was a problem with Public Wildlife killing Private stock ( Such as the problems related to the relocation of wolves ) I think it is only fair for the Government to step in and give aid. But did you look at coyote whacker's Numbers? At best, South Dakota only kills 1/3 the number of coyotes that Kansas does. So why does South Dakota have a coyote problem, and Government funded ADC, while Kansas has no problem, and no Government funded
Open range sheep and open range cattle in areas conducive to coyote depredation Tim.We don't have large feed lots for the most part, we have areas miles away from houses.It doesn't matter how many coyotes are killed in the fall/winter as the voids get filled in for denning season, good coyote habitat fills in much quicker than most think, you also have areas of protection for the coyote. ie: ****** resvervations, and other private interest holdings where little to no control takes place.Again filling in those problematic areas again.
It is how many coyotes that can be taken out primarily those that are paired up raising pups in proximity to lambing and calving grounds is where alot of the problems arise. So kill all the coyotes you want fall/winter those adults will fill in good habitat and the sheep men sooner or later will have issues, to a lesser extent the cattleman, but I have a few that loose calves almost every spring in the area in which they calve.
The big difference is that both Midway and Moyle's, make it voluntary, SD and WY make it a mandatory tax. People who are forced to pay a tax are more likely to demanded the services that it funds, than are the people who pay the same tax voluntarily. That's just simple human nature.
There is a number if they choose not to report actual holdings that they will be assessed at. Think of it as an insurance policy. It is there if they need the service.The majority don't abuse the services offered.
And is it any wonder that you are funded 2/3's by the Fish and Game? What's worth more, an Antelope tag or a Sheep? F&G doesn't care any more about protecting sheep than do most Americans. They fund you because Coyotes are major predators for Antelope Fawns. The hell with the sheep, the money is to be found in Cattle and Antelope, but it's not a bad idea to force the sheep herders help fund antelope protection.
F&G does care about the sheep producer and the cattle producer as they own the land, it is not only good PR it also keeps land open to hunting and keeps the producers a little more at ease. The sheep men are the most vocal who sit on predator control boards, they have NO problem paying into the program, in fact many use to have there own country board planes and help offset cost of aerial hunting with funds as well, the majority of sheep men/cattlemen will tell you they like having ADC personnel in there area. They aren't forced to do things, they want to protect there investments and livelihood.
Wake up and get a grip! Take a look at those numbers that coyote whacker posted again. Look at those top producing States, like Texas. When is the last time you heard a Texan whine about easy hunting access? They have Wildlife services, and yet the nearly the entire state is under a hunting lease. But if you go to States with out Wildlife services, you find land owners willing to FREELY allow hunters on their land .
Not factual at all Tim, try going to southern Iowa anymore and getting a "free" shot at a big buck or try going to Ill and getting that shot at a big buck, they are all going to hunting lease or paid to hunt. Yet they have no wildlife services programs. Last time I hunted southern Iowa, deer crawling all over themselves on a late season doe only hunt we actually had a few that wanted 100.00 per doe shot on their place LOL! With all the high fences in Texas can we really say what is and isn't wildlife anymore? Texas is not the great model of hunting by any means.
Simply put, The USDA Wildlife Services, does very little to help the public who funds it, but screws many hardworking Americans out of land to hunt. You guys fly an airplane to kill coyotes, ( Something illegal for most of us ) and ruin a good calling area for everyone else. You use toxic ants that are illegal for everyone else, and when you are caught killing non-target animals, such as big game and livestock. You quickly blame the deaths on coyotes and ask for more funding. Hell, you guys are the experts, who is qualified to argue?
WS does plenty to help protect the public, when there is a rabies outbreak in wildlife who is there to help solve the problem? When there is plague in a P-dog town who is there to help with the problem? When there are birds causing havoc on runways and other areas who is there to solve the problem. Livestock losses who is there to solve the problem? Ever go beaver trapping when it is 90 outside and you are on the only body of water for miles? Love those mosquitos at this time of year in those conditions, but they can't all wait for prime fur season.
Aerial control of coyotes is a great way to get those offending coyotes and by taking out some adults who defend the territory, you open those areas up for more coyotes to use that habitat in the fall when you go trapping and calling Tim.. The cost to run a plane and the dangers with aerial hunting, it is not a fur harvesting tool either and is used with care. It can also save dept funds at times. If you want get a plane, a pilot license and I'm sure you can find some contract hunting.
Again m-44's can and are licensed to private applicators, and are not a fur tool you use them on private ground and 26 use restrictions are followed. Big game and livestock are not a main concern with m-44's if used in a proper manner and you have the training to use them correctly.
No loss gets reported as a kill unless it is verified, that simple. If I or others can't verify it as a coyote kill it doesn't get entered in the books as such.
--------------------
This is done on my time and my dime. My views may differ from those of others!
Posts: 376 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
coyote whacker
Knows what it's all about
Member # 639
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:28 PM
No never hunted KS, I grew up in NE,Iowa larger tracts of wooded hills and forest with openings. When I called coyotes in this enviroment I called the coyotes into openings close to the bedding cover, no sense in going into the bedding cover to get busted and they would come out in the open or if more cagey would at least come to the edge offering more opporunity. Or find the travel strips offering them some benefit and assurance of approach, but favoring me more as the caller and shooter than the heavy timber stands.
I have hunted plenty of thick cover in my day just takes different forms, thick cedar stands, large timber, multi flora rose after logging that grows as thick and jungly as any cover I have ever hunted. All perfect places for coyotes to seek shelter and lay up in. Where there is a will there is a way.
My point on the gray hounds was exactly as I stated it, sight hounds are used alot in North dakota in more open areas, you talked about the dense cover and wondered how that works, you gave a response. If dense cover is that close, then O can see it not beinf as productive as areas with alot more open exspanses, less room for the coyote to hide correct? I don't dislike you, hell I don't really know who you are.
--------------------
This is done on my time and my dime. My views may differ from those of others!
Posts: 376 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 21, 2007 07:45 PM
Fair enough. I think we see eye to eye on that.
Scott's only met me once, though, and his thoughts on me are patently obvious. LOL So, I'll say to you what I've said to him several times: Your words speak to your character.
Bat phone has been shut off until tomorrow. C'y'all Thursday!
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TA17Rem
Hello, I'm the legendary Tim Anderson, Field Marshall, Southern Minneesota Sector
Member # 794
|
posted February 21, 2007 09:09 PM
Tim B. i'm not a westerner and i have seen a M-44 in use and yes they are deadly on coyotes. the first time i saw one i saw the dead coyote at about 15 ft. away from the M-44. On the eastern side of area i call the ranchers say that the coyotes are not much of a problem and i was led to believe that till two years ago. I started hunting farther west and a rancher friend called me up one fall and asked when i was comeing out. I said in about a week i would be there, i asked him what the rush was and he said the coyotes are killing his mule deer that hang out around the ranch. When i got out there i found out he was'nt lieing and what i saw really opened my eyes. The rancher showed me where the coyote kills where and sure enough there was just bones left of the deer. It turns out there was a group of 5-8 blood thirsty coyotes running around on his ranch. I was able to call in 2 and kill them and another guy from rapid city came out and took 3-4. Where i call the only person to help is the warden and hunters who ask to hunt on the ranches. In other parts of the state they have airialgunners who go out and thin the herd so to speak, but they only go out if there is plenty of snow. Most of the ranches i hunt on the driveways are 15 miles long and the cattle graze year round in the range units. Some ranchers have brought the herds up to the yard at calveing time to reduce coyote kills. It would be nice if they did'nt have airial gunning and such, it would be calling heaven. But like Scott has said recreatinal callers don't fix the problem. In my oppinion the ranchers need guys like Scott and Cal to take care of the problem coyotes. As far as finding places to call on, I have no problem finding a ranch to call on and some of the ranchers even invite me in for coffee. I did a check on coyotes harvested in the state and i came up with 5,162 that were sold to fur buyers and you could add a couple thousand more for those who shoot and leave lay, and then there are the out of staters that take some home with them and sell there......
In Mn. the annual take of coyotes is 4,000 plus the others that are left to rot...
--------------------
What if I told you, the left wing and right wing both belong to same bird!
Posts: 5063 | From: S.D. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wiley E
Knows what it's all about
Member # 108
|
posted February 21, 2007 11:52 PM
quote:
Cdog: "Your comments demonstrate your ignorance, Scott."
Keep telling yourself that Lance because you've done a piss poor job of proving it up to now.
quote:
Cdog: "Good try at spinning the facts, but if the calls and e-mails I received after our most recent dust up before this one are any indication, I again submit that your comments speak to your character."
Well I'm glad you at least have a support group because you certainly need it and I could give a shit less what anyone thinks of me.
Yes, my comments do speak to my character. I place a higher level of importance on accurate information than worrying about bruising some fragile ego.
quote:
Cdog: "BTW, just for the record, upon receiving that complaint this summer and killing the five, we called six. That's a kill rate of 83.5% when not just hunting for fun."
Oh, I see, so when you are hunting for fun your kill rate drops down to 11% but when you are working complaints, which is a grand total of one for the year, your success sky rockets to 83.5%.
quote:
Cdog: "Having said that, I do believe that someone should, or maybe can teach you a little respect and manners. You've got issues."
Bring your A game!
I don't respect those who deceive and mislead so you will be hard pressed to gain any respect from me unless you start talking straight.
Yeh, I got issues. I have a real low tolerance for misleading and inaccurate information coming from those who think they know a hell of a lot more than they actually do. I went through the curse of misleading information by "fast buck artists" when I started trapping and I swore I would do whatever it took to keep others from going through the same thing.
quote:
Cdog: "I want to argue the point that the so-called problem is not of the extent that you seem to want to convince the readers it is."
Seem to want to convince????
Gee, that sounds real convincing doesn't it?
You don't have any large range lambing operations so why would I try to convince anyone you had extensive coyote predation in your area???
You've convinced me you don't have a coyote predation problem because you don't have large range sheep operations in your area which is a direct contradiction to your previous statement where you claimed to be taking care of the problem.
quote:
Cdog: "More importantly, I've never asserted that my hunting will stop depredation."
Hahaha!
You just got done saying that "we take care of our own problems thank you" and now your saying your hunting doesn't stop predation.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't keep your stories straight because you just keep making sh*t up as you're going. That's why you keep contradicting yourself and that's why I don't have any respect for you.
quote:
Cdog: "Probably a good thing you live in South Dakota, huh?"
Why's that? I shoot the same percentages most of the time whether I'm calling ND, SD, WY, or CO. This year at St. Francis was an exception due to the weather. Not an excuse, a fact!
You have a hell of a lot more coyotes in Kansas than we've ever had in South Dakota so don't give me that bullsh*t.
Our coyote population is currently 30% of normal and 50% of that has mange.
quote:
Cdog: "In this part of Kansas, again - a completely different biome than what you have seen in western Kansas around St. Francis - these are pretty good number."
quote:
Cdog: "There's one other guy in this area that calls as much as I do and I saw him at the fur buyer's last week. He had a grand total of 12 coyotes on the year. he pointed to the two big piles of mauled and chewed up coyotes from the dog wagon boys lying nearby waiting to be graded and sold and made a disparaging remark about how "those bastards" are the cause of his bad numbers. Guess my "excus-itis" is contagious, huh?"
Oh, so the dog hunters can get them but you can't. I see! Keep typing Lance your making my point with virtually every statement you make.
quote:
Cdog: "Again, good thing you live there and not here. I guess I'm just more "determined" than you are. of course, we could have all the coyote callers in the country move to South Dakota where we'll find "satisfaction", like you."
What a ridiculous statement! You think it's the state? How come Jeremy and his partner can win St. Francis with 18 coyotes in a day and a half? They can get it done and all you offer is excuses.
What would you know about my determination? LOL!
According to your statistics and your excuses, what you consider "satisfaction" would be a far cry from what I would consider "satisfaction".
Try your luck in SD and if you can consistantly kill 6 - 10 coyotes per day in a normal year or 3 - 5 coyotes now, then you will have accomplished something.
quote:
Cdog: "In the absence of vocal responses, great and wise one, how do you suppose we should select stand locations? Gut feeling? Past history of responses? Experience? Dumb luck?"
Why are you asking me? You're the one who pretends to know so much about it. You tell me.
quote:
Cdog: "Other than two small flocks and one old lady with five ewes and a ram that run loose in her yard, WE DON'T HAVE SHEEP. As far as not doing anything to help predation, okay. But I'm sure having fun."
Then why did you say, "we are taking care of our own problems, thank you"?
Again, you can't keep your stories straight.
quote:
Cdog: "Again, I've made no claims to controlling predation hunting during the season."
quote:
Cdog: ".....as far as 'tight to buildings' go, this area has no huge expanses of open range. EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE is close to buildings."
Then why weren't you just honest from the start and say "WE DON'T HAVE A PREDATOR PROBLEM" instead of saying "we take care of our own problems thank you"?
Again, if you don't have a predator problem, then there is nothing to take care of is there?
Watch this contradiction readers .....
quote:
SH (previous): "Did you ever think of going to a place WITH COYOTES?"
quote:
Cdog (in response): "You're right. There aren't any. Well, not really "any". Just one."
quote:
Cdog (in the next response): "I've told every one of them that the hunting gets very poor once the ground freezes hard and the dog wagons rape and pillage every square inch of cover. The coyotes are there. They'll attest to that. Yet none of them have managed to peel one either. Statement of fact. Go figure."
quote:
Cdog (in the same post): "the two big piles of mauled and chewed up coyotes from the dog wagon boys"
quote:
Cdog (in the same thread): "I've stated repeatedly that we have lots of coyotes. What we don't have is lots of coyotes responding to calls."
From "there aren't any coyotes" to "the coyotes are there" to "we have lots of coyotes".
Again, you directly contradict yourself presenting a perfect example of what I am referring to.
quote:
Cdog: "I'm comfortable in my own skin as far as my skills go and don't need to run my ass ragged for two days just so I can say once and for all that I'm better than you."
Is that what you think this is about? Who is better? YOU SAY I HAVE ISSUES????
This is about who knows what they're talking about and who is talking out of their ass, that's what this is about.
quote:
Cdog: "Just a while back, Gerry Blair penned a nice piece on Rich Higgins and Tyler. Did you send him a letter bomb because he had the gall to write about someone else?"
Gerry generally knows what he's talking about and he's entertaining. You don't and you're not!
You sir are no Gerry Blair!
quote:
Cdog: "How many times has Gerry won St. Francis?"
Gerry doesn't have to win St. Francis to know the limitations of his knowledge and be a good writer as a result. He's also entertaining as heck.
quote:
Cdog: "How about some of the other big names in the industry?"
A big "COMMERCIAL" name in the industry IN AND OF ITSELF does not a good coyote hunter make.
quote:
Cdog: "How about you?"
How about me?
I placed 6th and 8th in St. Francis without a coyote refuge and without the hometown advantage. The year Quinton and I went down just to check out the contest, we killed 7 just knocking on doors which would have tied us for 3rd place that year if memory serves me correctly. This past year we placed 8th (tying 3 other teams with 6 coyotes that both beat us on total coyote weight). We got 13 stands in for the entire 2 days. The winning team got 17 stands in on the first day alone.
Well since you issued the challenge, I'll list the rest of my credentials.
I previously won the National contest in Rawlins Wyoming, won or placed in every contest I have entered in SD, and won the largest contest in North Dakota. Hold the current state record in SD for killing the most coyotes in a 3 day contest with a total of 30.
Do I need to prove myself further?
I've put my money where my mouth is and that's why I don't have any reservations correcting your misleading and inaccurate information. I've paid my dues.
The names in calling that I consider "BIG NAMES" are the Schmidt's, Gugelmeyer, Peterson, Johnsons, Barnes, Belcourt, Huston, Denke, McAllister, Heath, Wagoner, Taylor, Vanderley, Roede, Higgins, Bosin, Carlson, Austin (deceased), Guzman, Kolman, Heids, Richardson, Nelson, Carpenter, Lockwood, Boddicker, Perault, Sanders, Rowley, Petersen, and others like them.
I'll bet many of these names you've never heard of besides the internet forum names so I guess we probably differ on what we consider "BIG NAMES".
These guys can all kill coyotes.
quote:
Cdog: "but if you want to lose sleep over me, go ahead."
I don't lose any sleep over you, trust me. You just annoy me when I'm on the computer because I expect reliable information.
quote:
Cdog: "you can safely buy other media and rest comfortably knowing you won't stumble on my misguided ramblings."
That's great news!
quote:
Cdog: "Again, thanks for sharing. Your thoughts are important to me."
You're welcome! Perhaps in the future you'll contradict yourself less, gain some self confidence, and speak from your own experiences instead of writing about things you haven't even tried.
quote:
Cdog: "They both laughed, and said that coyotes had nothing to do with it. There wasn't any real money in it to begin with and there still isn't."
Hahaha! You think a cattlemen's opinion of why a sheepman IN YOUR AREA went out of business is gospel?
FACT: There was a lot of money made in sheep over the years which paid for a lot of ranches.
FACT: There was some bad years where the combination of coyote predation and bad markets drove a lot of them out of the business IN MANY AREAS.
FACT: There is good money being made in sheep in recent years.
FACT: If there wasn't any money in it, NOBODY WOULD DO IT!
quote:
Cdog: "That's what happens when you have big bluestem higher than your head for mile after mile."
Followed by:
quote:
Cdog: "Also, it's waist high grass, and actually, it's often taller than that."
quote:
Cdog (speaking of greyhound coursing): "THIS MUST BE DONE ON RELATIVELY OPEN GROUND WITH AS LITTLE COVER AS POSSIBLE."
Oh, so it was just "waist high grass" and not "higher than your head for mile after mile" but the greyhound guys are stacking up enviable stacks of coyotes "WHICH MUST BE DONE ON RELATIVELY OPEN GROUND WITH AS LITTLE COVER AS POSSIBLE"????
Glad we cleared that up!
Nice job stepping on your dick again Kluso!
quote:
Cdog: "Been checking out that 11%. A lot of KS callers are behind me and agree that that's a pretty fair assessment."
That's revealing. Perhaps they need to spend some time with our St. Francis winners.
quote:
Cdog: "Offering up all the kudos that people give the likes of you in areas where your coyote numbers are so much higher and they're more easily called than here is a mistake as far as I'm concerned. After all, anyone can catch a chicken in a hen house."
Oh, so now you are back to not having any coyotes again huh? Hahaha! Dr. Lance and Mr. Hyde!
You say our coyote numbers are higher than your coyote numbers and more easily called in then you say:
quote:
Cdog: "That's all the more you guys sell in coyotes? I must say that I am surprised by that. How many were killed and not sold? Couple hundred thousand? Otherwise, I'd think you'd be hard pressed to convince reasonable people that you suffer an infestation."
Can you not remember what you write from one post to the next?
According to the predator scent surveys and indices reports, Kansas has twice the coyote population that SD does.
What the hell would you know about our coyote populations or how easily called they are? Wait a minute, silly me, YOU DON'T KNOW!
Another PERFECT EXAMPLE of the bullsh*t I'm talking about. You just make it up as you go and you wonder why I have a problem with what you write.
DING! DING!
quote:
Cdog: "Calling a state like Kansas where it's a true challenge only serves to make you better as you have to work your way through the challenges with which you're faced."
Ahhhh...ok? Kinda like the challenge of cornfields of Eastern South Dakota or the Mountains of Colorado huh? LOL!
Yeh, tell me about challenges Cdog......ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Considering the fact that your success ratio is only 11% and considering the fact that the greyhound boys are piling them up with shoulder high big bluestem, when can we expect you to work through those challenges?
quote:
Cdog: "That's maybe why those two Kansas boys smacked you down at St. Francis two years in a row."
Hahaha! Listen to you! The one who sits in judgement, writes about others, and can't keep his damn stories straight.
Isn't it ironic that two Kansas boys smacked us two years in a row WHEN COYOTES IN KANSAS ARE SUPPOSEDLY SO HARD TO KILL???
Nice job stepping on your dick again Kluso!
The boys in Kansas whooped up on us two years in a row because they have a coyote refuge with a lot of virgin eared coyotes, they bust their ass, and they kill a much higher percent of their coyotes than 11% for the stands they make.
Where we hunt, the locals tell us it's heavily called but we still managed to kill 6 in 8" of hard packed snow pulling a sled while you sit and write about it.
quote:
Cdog: "You stated that it's your (informed) opinion that we have a problem and that we're undergunned in dealing with it. Isn't that the inference you've made all along?"
No, I simply questioned how much of a problem you had since you said you were taking care of your problem then said you didn't have a problem. I think the problem is obvious! Your inability to keep your stories straight is the problem.
quote:
Cdog: "What we don't have is lots of coyotes responding to calls. For me, or anyone else for that matter."
Oh, and that would explain this wouldn't it......
quote:
Cdog: " in those instances where I have been asked to come out and target specific coyotes in specific locations, that number rises from 11% (which reflects the season-wide numbers) to nearly 84% kill rate (specifically hunting to assist landowners) and satisfaction rate for the producer."
Or this....
quote:
Cdog: "My results in using those methods were successful enough in a relatively short span (mean = 1.5-2 years use, or 500 stands) of time that I felt they had merit."
Ok, let me see if I've got this straight now, there aren't any coyotes but you have lots of coyotes that aren't responding to calls for you or anyone else but you have an 84% kill rate on a certain complaint and your results when using the methods you write about were successful enough that you thought they had merit????
Ahhh...ok! Glad we got that straightened out too. Sheeeesh!
Oh, and that (lack of success) would also explain why the two Kansas boys smacked us wouldn't it?
quote:
Cdog: "You lose your gold star, Scott."
You are correct this time. My typo. That should have read "when you only kill coyotes on 11% of the stands you make" not "when you only call coyotes on 11% of the stands you make.
My mistake. I stand corrected THIS TIME!
quote:
Cdog: "By my math, that equates to calling coyotes on 30.08% of stands called, and killing coyotes on 11.38% of total stands. Looking at things from the perspective that you can only kill coyotes when coyotes are seen, you would have to calculate the percentage killed based upon the total seen, or 28 kills of 74 seen, or a kill percentage of 37.83 percent."
The bottom line is that, by your own admission, you only kill coyotes on 11% of the stands you make. That is a very revealing statistic to me.
quote:
Cdog: "Assuming that you do have the problems outlined, then that just goes to show you that just because you have coyotes doesn't necessarily mean you have a coyote problem, regardless of how you spin the data to validate your vocation."
Absolutely amazing when you just got done preaching to me about "SUPPOSEDLY" knowing more about your area than you did. Hahaha!
I was simply trying to sort out your contradictions and now you are telling us about our areas? LOL!
quote:
Cdog: "Calls from people that like me: 2 (Thanks, Tom)"
I'm glad you have your supporters. I doubt any of them kill coyotes for a living or they could see through your contradictions as easily as I do.
quote:
Higgins: "This is a clash of personalities that could be easily resolved by spending a day hunting with each other."
A day of hunting with eachother would not change the contradictions and misleading information. I have no desire to hunt with someone that makes sh*t up and can't keep his stories straight.
~SH~
[ February 22, 2007, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Wiley E ]
Posts: 853 | From: Kadoka, S.D | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wiley E
Knows what it's all about
Member # 108
|
posted February 22, 2007 12:49 AM
quote:
TB: "No shit? When and where?"
It's happened! Let's leave it at that.
quote:
TB:"Have you ever had a trapper ask you "What's an M-44?" $10 says that if the question came from an adult, it was an Eastern Trapper who asked."
I won't argue that.
quote:
TB: "Eastern trappers have never had Government funded Wildlife services, and yet somehow they have never had a problem with people using illegal toxicants.
Not much use for an M-44 where you don't have a lot of coyote predation on livestock due to husbandry practices is there?
quote:
TB: "Western trappers, who have to live around the Government trappers can tell you exactly what an M-44 is, and Most of them will tell you that they are bad news, as we both know that they not only kill a lot of coyotes, but they kill all wildlife. (Did I mention that they can be hell on cattle as well?)
Tim, that is absolutely untrue. I know something about M-44s.
From 1986 to 1996, I averaged 235 coyotes per year ON M-44s ALONE which is a matter of public record. I also taught the private M-44 training session in SD for 3 years. An M-44 is one of the most target specific means of predator control there is. Out of 235 coyotes in a year I might kill a few fox (targets in sheep areas), a couple STRAY dogs, a skunk and a coon in a single year. THAT'S IT! GOSPEL TRUTH.
I rock or trench all my M-44s in which eliminates any chance of livestock problems. I killed 1 550 lb. calf on my future father in laws ranch and after that, I never set another one without rocking or trenching them in.
I also helped Pocatella supply depot make numerous improvements to the M-44.
To suggest that M-44s kill "ALL WILDLIFE" is absolutely untrue. I did not say a lie, I said untrue. I trust you have no intent to mislead.
quote:
TB: "So why does South Dakota have a coyote problem, and Government funded ADC, while Kansas has no problem, and no Government funded ADC?"
Excellent question Tim and the heart of the issue.
Currently, with the lower coyote populations and mange, SD's coyote problems have restricted themselves MAINLY to the large sheep production areas which are predominately in the NW corner of the state. Prior to that, in my district alone, I had 52 verified calf kills in one spring. Many more calf kills went unreported and unverified. My calf complaints have dropped to less than 10 per year since mange has set in. In the NW corner of the state and any areas of range sheep production, the coyote numbers have always been kept low and there is always coyote predation.
Why don't they have any problems in Kansas and no government funded ADC program?
Simple, because they don't have any more large sheep range operations. Those who used to run sheep in large range operations in Western Kansas could no longer sustain the predator losses along with lower markets so they bought into cattle.
quote:
TB:"And if memory serves, You and Dr Jones ( Ster600 ) brought the idea to the NTA and saved them from Bankruptcy a few years ago ( In case I've never told you, Thank You. I really appreciate that saving grace)"
You are welcome but I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. LOL! Seriously! That's been a long time ago and I'm on Lipator. LOL!
quote:
TB: "People who are forced to pay a tax are more likely to demanded the services that it funds, than are the people who pay the same tax voluntarily. That's just simple human nature."
That's true! I can't argue that!
quote:
TB: "F&G doesn't care any more about protecting sheep than do most Americans. They fund you because Coyotes are major predators for Antelope Fawns."
That's not true! I can argue that! LOL!
As a matter of fact, in some areas, it would be beneficial to have more deer and antelope predation. Coyotes are not having that much of an impact on UNSTRESSED deer and antelope populations IN SOUTH DAKOTA. That's not the ase in other states.
The reason GF&P is funding so much of the program is because when we are not doing ADC work, we are doing other work for GF&P which I have been doing since my coyote numbers are down. Currently 15% of our duties has to be non ADC work. The sportsman have no problems helping to fund predator control due to the fact that so many ranchers still allow hunting on private land in SD although those numbers are dwindling. Those who like to call coyotes realize that it's good to have someone removing problem individuals, IN CATTLE AREAS, as opposed to broad based population control In sheep areas, we have to conduct broad based coyote population control.
quote:
TB:"Wake up and get a grip!"
Haha! ok!
quote:
TB: "Take a look at those numbers that coyote whacker posted again. Look at those top producing States, like Texas. When is the last time you heard a Texan whine about easy hunting access? They have Wildlife services, and yet the nearly the entire state is under a hunting lease. But if you go to States with out Wildlife services, you find land owners willing to FREELY allow hunters on their land."
Ok, your point is taken. I'm referring to SD.
quote:
TB: "Simply put, The USDA Wildlife Services, does very little to help the public who funds it, but screws many hardworking Americans out of land to hunt."
Once again, not true! Our ADC program takes less than 10% of the total estimated population of coyotes in SD. Predator Control, outside of large sheep production areas, is not about population control, it's about controlling predation. We target certain coyotes or certain populations of coyotes in certain places at certain times of the year. Most of those areas, with the exception of the large sheep production areas, have coyotes migrate back into them the following fall. In fact, by removing the adult pairs in the spring, this creates a vacuum that is quickly filled back in with more coyotes than would be there if a denning pair was holding the area. Our efforts have no affect on coyote killing in this state outside of the large sheep production areas. In fact, had we killed more, we may not have as big a mange problem as we have. THE SPORTSMAN DIDN'T KILL ENOUGH SO MANGE SET IN.
quote:
TB: "You guys fly an airplane to kill coyotes, ( Something illegal for most of us ) and ruin a good calling area for everyone else."
Listen to yourself. The only place that an airplane is flying outside of spring calving areas in this state is around sheep operations. Do you think that sheep producers should suffer huge losses SO YOU HAVE MORE COYOTES TO CALL?? That's pretty selfish!
Leonard, we were here once weren't we? Hahaha!
Go to the cattle areas and call to your heart's content and you are welcome for a population of immigrant dumb pups into those vacuums.
quote:
TB: "You use toxicants that are illegal for everyone else, and when you are caught killing non-target animals, such as big game and livestock. You quickly blame the deaths on coyotes and ask for more funding. Hell, you guys are the experts, who is qualified to argue?"
I don't kill big game and livestock. I rock and trench my M-44s in and I don't set snares in livestock. I use breakaway locks and I use loop sizes and trails that rarely catch deer. I see far more problems with snares catching deer and livestock in the private sector, BY FAR.
I don't blame my mistakes on something else. I own up to my mistakes and have no problem doing so.
Thanks for the questions and comments Tim!
NEXT!
~SH~
[ February 22, 2007, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Wiley E ]
Posts: 853 | From: Kadoka, S.D | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cdog911
"There are some ideas so absurd only an intellectual could believe them."--George Orwell.
Member # 7
|
posted February 22, 2007 04:37 AM
"I placed 6th and 8th in St. Francis without a coyote refuge and without the hometown advantage. The year Quinton and I went down just to check out the contest, we killed 7 just knocking on doors which would have tied us for 3rd place that year if memory serves me correctly. This past year we placed 8th (tying 3 other teams with 6 coyotes that both beat us on total coyote weight). We got 13 stands in for the entire 2 days. The winning team got 17 stands in on the first day alone.
Well since you issued the challenge, I'll list the rest of my credentials.
I previously won the National contest in Rawlins Wyoming, won or placed in every contest I have entered in SD, and won the largest contest in North Dakota. Hold the current state record in SD for killing the most coyotes in a 3 day contest with a total of 30."
Ever enter the World Hunt? How'd that go?
--------------------
I am only one. But still, I am one. I cannot do everything, but still, I can do something; and, because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.
Posts: 5438 | From: The gun-lovin', gun-friendly wild, wild west | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
