Coyote bounty impact harmful

2

2fat2fly

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/Coyote+bounty+impact+harmful/2231442/story.html

The StarPhoenixNovember 17, 2009

Just more than a year after Saskatchewan caught the nation's attention as the bastion of backwardness by organizing a gopher derby, it's back in the news -- this time for placing a bounty on coyotes.

It may have escaped the notice of Agriculture Minister Bob Bjornerud that coyotes are much more adept than are .22s at dealing with a problem of excessive gophers, but this misplaced priority didn't escape the notice of those who actually study wildlife in this province.

Lorne Scott, head of Nature Saskatchewan, was taken by surprise when he heard of the new bounty. Darrell Crabbe, executive director of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, suggests coyotes are probably much less of a problem than what the minister suspects.

"Coyotes play a very important role in the health of the ecosystem out there in many places," he said.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Crabbe both suggest the government would have been better off to allow some RMs the luxury of opting out of the coyote bounty. Certainly, those RMs that suffer from an overpopulation of gophers -- these make up the majority in southern Saskatchewan -- would quite likely appreciate the opportunity to opt out.

But even those RMs with an overabundance of coyotes would be wise to consider how it came to be that there are so many of the predators in their districts. Populations of coyotes, foxes, badgers, hawks and owls all are closely tied to the abundance of their food supply. In Saskatchewan, that abundance is typically reflected in the rodent population and the province has struggled since its early settlement days to control these rodents.

One can be sure that, if there is an abundance of coyotes, it isn't an oversupply of calves and lambs that's led to the population explosion. Any effort at a large-scale coyote eradication program, such as the $20-a-head bounty now offered by the provincial government, is bound to do much more harm than good over the long haul.

The province stepped into this delicate balance between predator and prey when it opted a few months ago to allow the use of higher doses of strychnine to control gophers. While this was an understandable decision, given the severity of the gopher problem and the enormous economic impact they have on agriculture, it came with risks.

When predators eat the sick or recently dead remains of the gophers, they, too, can be poisoned. This threat against the critters at the top of the food chain is great enough that, for generations, Saskatchewan people have recognized the danger of increasing the concentration of poison.

Adding to this the threat an ill-considered bounty -- so ill-considered that it wasn't apparently discussed with those organizations most closely attuned to the natural balance -- would seem to be reckless over the long term.

What Saskatchewan needs is a much more comprehensive program to compensate producers for losses they absorb from wildlife. Far better to pay producers compensation for the carcass of an animal they've lost to a predator (or even for a reasonable facsimile of a carcass if the remains can't be found) than to pay a bounty on animals that, in all likelihood, are doing more good than harm.

If a program is in place that more closely compensates for the real losses that producers must absorb because of nature, perhaps the connection between predator and prey would become more obvious to those officials who are quick to come up with cash for a bounty.

And it wouldn't hurt to have those officials and producers, who are so quick to pick up their guns, consider what it does to the reputation of Saskatchewan on the national stage when one year they hold a derby to shoot gophers and the next there's bounty placed on one of that pest's main predators.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Click to expand...

The yotes in my area are really raising hell with deer populations.
I wonder what the compensation is for a child or family pet...
 
The coyotes are quick to kill the sick and lame, but then what? Pretty obvious, they will kill the rest...

These editors are pretty dumb if they think there will be a large scale eradication of coyotes. You can't kill them all, they'll just re-produce more...
 
after hunting deer for 3 days Iam starting to see why the bounty is on, not many deer in our area, and alot of coyotes, everytime i go out calling i call one or 2 in, in our area i can see why cattle are getting ate, because all the deer are gone and they still need to feed the pack. Iam sure the coyote poplulation will go down during our rifle deer season, especially when you get $20 per yote, and as for the coyote population being hurt. won't happen next year it will bounce right back.

my $1.00 opinion

sv7772
 
Yotes may eat gophers from May to August or so, but what do they eat the rest of the time?

Ducks, geese, grouse, pheasants, rabbits, deer, moose, chickens, and even calves sometimes.

Not to mention family pets.
 
Considering they are hunting in packs now, i think the bounty should be 100/dog. They need to realize, these buggers doo alot of damage to our livestock population and the local wild life too. I have shot over 30 of the buggers since october, and 12 of them i shot in the feed yard chewing on calves. So they cant tell me,you,or anyone that they shouldnt be doing something about this.
 
Just more than a year after Saskatchewan caught the nation's attention as the bastion of backwardness by organizing a gopher derby, it's back in the news -- this time for placing a bounty on coyotes.
Click to expand...

This statement makes me angry - typical big city bullchit. How do they expect crops and farm animals to be maximized so that they can one day be purchased by urban pacifists in convenient styrofoam and plastic packages?

Gophers and predators both need to be curbed.
 
I think as hunters and gun owners a good idea is to figure out how to get the farmers and land owners to get info quickly to us to go to whatever place the problem is "big" and take care of it. I personally don't have a problem going somewhere in the summer for 3+ days and shooting as many gophers as I can. Same goes for coyote in the winter, bounty or not.

And this writer has his head in his butt. Bounties can be easily rescinded and the coyote population isn't going to be eradicated within one year.
 
Last edited:
So this dimwit thinks it would be better to distribute tax monies from everyone, to compensate producers for their losses. When instead R.M.s, farmers, ranchers, hunters will take care of the problem at a much lower cost, even with a bounty included as an incentive/expense reduction rebate, to the producer.
With the increased gopher population, mainly caused by the reduction in pest management in recent years, by restrictions on poisoning programs. (Thanks again Nanny state.) We should have expected coyote populations to rise as well. And no one thought of this. Now we have too many gophers, and too many coyotes. I see this bounty as getting back to how we managed things before the ignorant, urban, anti gun idiots, and politicians started thinking they can micro manage everything outside the big city. We outside the city know how to manage the land quite well without uninformed interference. It is good for the producers to help reduce these pests, and numbers will adjust downward, and the bounty will be removed. then the focus should be hard on gophers.
 
Bounty or not yote hunting is on the menu. All you sask hunters out there do the game a service and thin out these things. It is just ridiculous as to how many are out there. And all you wolf trappers need to get busy in the forest areas as they are far too numerous as well.

Lets face it natures balance needs a little help now and then. If the predator populations are not lowered significantly and soon the game will take many many years to come back after the predators starve off.
 
Far better to pay producers compensation for the carcass of an animal they've lost to a predator (or even for a reasonable facsimile of a carcass if the remains can't be found) than to pay a bounty on animals that, in all likelihood, are doing more good than harm.
Click to expand...

WTF does that mean? Maybe you can submit a "reasonable hand drawn facsimile" of a dead sheep/calf/whatever to be compensated by the goobermint.

Apparently the idiots are spreading west from Ontario and Quebec. Take my advice and cull the idiots with a $20 bounty as they become a big problem once they take hold. :p ;)
 
Try to terminate as many as possible, within the perameters of fair chase.

My small contribution to local wildlife management and game conservation.
Don't particularly give a "rat's a$$ " for either fur or bounty... just the overall satisfaction of effective calling and an accurate rifle !
 
To be honest, it is true that bounties haven't been terribly successful when it comes to long term predator control.

But, if you want to deal with a predator problem in the short term, its a useful tool.

IMHO, if you really want to make a bounty effective in the long term, focus it on the most efficient means of taking predators: trapping.
 
$20.00 for one yote would cover partial fuel bills. You would get an outing and target practice. Have lunch with your friends or siblings. While helping out the deer population in your area. It's a win , win situation.
 
Budweiser2 said:
$20.00 for one yote would cover partial fuel bills. You would get an outing and target practice. Have lunch with your friends or siblings. While helping out the deer population in your area. It's a win , win situation.
Click to expand...

CV32 said:
IMHO, if you really want to make a bounty effective in the long term, focus it on the most efficient means of taking predators: trapping.
Click to expand...

Both of these are excellent points. :cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom