The number of complaints USDA Wildlife Services receives from livestock producers confirms the coyote abundance. According to Phil Mastrangelo, director of USDA Wildlife Services in North Dakota, coyote complaints increased from 374 in 2007 to 498 last year. He said Wildlife Services has nine wildlife-control experts across the state, and coyotes account for the bulk of their workload.
“These guys work a large area, a minimum of five counties apiece, and they’re stretched pretty thin,” he said.
I guess the Senate Bill for this was shot down. But the House Bill is still in play and I think something like this would be a fantastic idea.
First, lets look at the opponent’s view on this. Of course the North Dakota Game and Fish Department would be opposed to a bounty program because it would threaten their good deals. Meaning if a bounty program succeeds, then why fund inefficient programs in the NDGFD? I compare this to the TSA and their opposition to private industry taking over their airport screening services.(notice how the TSA shot private industry down as well) This is government versus private industry, or in this case, government versus private hunters.
But if you read the quote above, they are only using nine USDA government hunters to cover 5 counties apiece! How can they possible put a dent in the coyote population there? Let alone, if these guys are being paid by the feds, they are probably getting health care and everything else that government jobs entail. Or they could be contractor hunters–who knows? What I do know is that the state must scale up the hunting of this animal if it want’s to reduce it’s numbers, and it is not enough to just depend upon the whims of recreational hunters to do the job or nine government hunters.
I think a bounty program would work just fine, and it would be a way for the state to spread the work load and incentivize the process. It would also infuse money back into the local communities where jobs are scarce. Hell, if a hunter was able to bag three coyotes in a day, that would be 300 dollars. Not bad for a day’s work?
If you want professional hunters to really get involved with the eradication of these animals, you need to make killing coyotes a viable occupation for them. Hunters pay for their gun, bullets, a tank of gas, food, and maybe even lodging to go out and hunt recreationally. But there is no way a recreational hunter will be driven to expend this much time and treasure to continually do this, unless they have another profession or trust fund that can support this lifestyle. (and some do out there) Hell, I have to really plan and budget to make an effort to go out hunting once or twice a year.
But if you want to ramp up interest in the task, then it must be incentivized and there must be good rules and management of the process in order for it to be effective. The end result of such an effort will be the desired outcome. Hell, if commercialized hunting almost decimated the buffalo back in the wild west days, a coyote bounty system could equally be successful.
Or we can continue to depend upon an inefficient and undermanned government system to do the job–and meanwhile the coyote problem continues to rise and threaten livestock and deer populations. –Matt
North Dakota takes aim with bounty on coyotes
Feb. 09, 2011
By BRAD DOKKEN
Not a day goes by, Gerald Berthold says, when he doesn’t hear coyotes howling nearby on his farm west of Arvilla, N.D.
“You can be out in the evening, and you can hear them just about in every direction howling,” Berthold said.
Coyotes have killed at least two of his calves in recent years, Berthold said. And last summer, he said two calves simply disappeared from a pasture near Emerado, N.D.
Berthold can’t say for sure it was coyotes, but he has his suspicions.
“I don’t know where else they would have went,” he said. “They were too young to take off on their own. They were still nursing. They were month-old calves.”
Coyotes have become an increasingly hot topic in North Dakota in recent years. As the population grows, so, too, have the reports of coyotes causing problems. Berthold said the increase in coyote numbers has been especially apparent the past 10 to 15 years.
“They’re definitely on the increase,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that.”
Prompted largely by hunters who believe coyotes are hurting deer populations, a couple of bills have surfaced this winter in the North Dakota Legislature taking aim at reducing coyote numbers. House Bill 1454 and Senate Bill 2224 each would establish a $100 bounty on coyotes until 2,000 are taken.
Legislators haven’t yet acted on the bills.
NDGF opposes
Among the bills’ detractors is the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the agency charged with managing the state’s fish and wildlife resources. Roger Rostvet, deputy Game and Fish director, recently testified against the Senate version of the bounty bill.
The department’s rationale: Bounties don’t reduce populations, and spending up to $200,000 for coyotes that hunters or trappers probably would kill anyway could further detract from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program. Funded by a mix of federal and state dollars, USDA Wildlife Services controls coyotes and other pests for ag producers and is facing financial shortfalls in North Dakota.
“It’s been shown time and time again that bounties don’t reduce predator populations,” Rostvet said Jan. 27 in testifying before the Senate Natural Resources Committee. “In order to be effective, the annual surplus of the targeted predator must be harvested over a large geographic area and for an extended period of time.
“Experts have stated that between 50 percent and 75 percent of the population must be removed every year for a long time before any effect would be realized.”
Despite the claims by some hunters, the Game and Fish Department also downplays the impact coyotes have on deer populations. Rostvet in his testimony before the Senate committee said it’s hunters – not coyotes – that have reduced deer numbers.
That was by design, he said.
“There’s no doubt that some deer are taken by coyotes, but it’s not the primary causative factor of lower deer numbers in North Dakota,” Rostvet said. “The facts are that over the past five years, the department has actively managed for a lower number of deer in many parts of the state. The public felt that there were too many deer in areas and that the number of deer needed to be reduced.”
Upward trend
According to Stephanie Tucker, furbearer biologist for Game and Fish, coyote populations in North Dakota have shown a definite upward trend in the past 20 years.
That’s based on results from rural mail carrier surveys, fur buyer reports and an annual harvest questionnaire sent to predator hunters and trappers.
She said the department doesn’t calculate population estimates, only trends.
In 2009, Tucker said, the trends hit 20-year highs in each of the state’s four geographic regions – the area south and west of the Missouri River, the Missouri Coteau on the east side of the river, the Drift Prairie in central and eastern North Dakota and the Red River Valley.
But in 2010, she said, the trend numbers were back within normal ranges everywhere except the Drift Prairie, where populations remained high.
The number of complaints USDA Wildlife Services receives from livestock producers confirms the coyote abundance. According to Phil Mastrangelo, director of USDA Wildlife Services in North Dakota, coyote complaints increased from 374 in 2007 to 498 last year. He said Wildlife Services has nine wildlife-control experts across the state, and coyotes account for the bulk of their workload.
“These guys work a large area, a minimum of five counties apiece, and they’re stretched pretty thin,” he said.
Winter survivors
Coyotes have thrived despite the growing popularity of predator calling and hunting. Tucker said North Dakota hunters and trappers have harvested about 65,000 coyotes – give or take 25,000 – on average during each of the past five years, based on results from the department’s fur harvester survey.
She said the recent severe winters that have been hard on other North Dakota wildlife haven’t hampered coyotes, which have had easy pickings scavenging the remains.
“There’s ample food around, and they’re furbearers so they don’t starve,” Tucker said. “When the food is there, that’s all they need. As far as habitat goes, coyotes can live in just about anything.”
Tucker said severe winters also benefit coyotes because fewer hunters and trappers venture out in the heavy snow. And with fewer coyotes killed, more juveniles are living to reach breeding age and further expand the population.
Throw in lower deer numbers, and you’ve got the recipe for a hot-button issue, Tucker said.
“We were dealing with some record high numbers of deer and pheasants prior to the last couple of winters,” she said. “That’s what people remember, and they want something to blame. Coyotes are an easy target.”
Other opposition
Game and Fish isn’t the only opponent of bounties. Jim Larson, a longtime coyote hunter from Fargo, said he recently took the step of calling eight legislators asking them to oppose the bounty proposals. He said he’s worried a bounty would prompt farmers to deny access because they’d see every coyote on their land as an easy $100.
And coyotes, Larson said, are the toughest quarry he’s ever hunted. That’s the attraction, he said – not the measly $12 to $15 he got for a coyote last year.
“They are the absolute greatest wildlife challenge that there is,” said Larson, who estimates he shoots about 200 coyotes annually. “They are smart. If you want a lesson in what’s going on in the outdoor world, you’ve got to go coyote hunting.
“I hunt a lot, and it’s not by accident that I’m shooting coyotes. This is all on purpose.”
Larson said he also is concerned a bounty would encourage unethical practices such as chasing coyotes down with snowmobiles or other vehicles. Based on his experience, Larson said he’s not convinced hunting can keep coyotes in check.
“I really don’t think it’s the way to control them,” he said. “I don’t know if there is a way to control them.”
Berthold, the cattle producer near Arvilla, said he thinks the bounty proposals still deserve a shot.
“It’s not a bad idea,” he said. “We need to keep the numbers in check. That’s the big thing. I don’t believe there’s enough people that think this is a problem yet, and it’s getting to be a problem. This is my personal opinion.
“It’s not epidemic by any stretch, and I’m not blaming Game and Fish for anything. But Game and Fish started managing deer numbers when they got out of hand, and I think this is something they should be looking at.”
Berthold, who also hunts deer, said he worries coyotes will be even more of a threat to cattle if deer populations continue to decline.
“I think they’re going to keep moving to the easiest food source,” he said. “Whether it’s a weak deer or when cattle producers start calving in the spring, you’re going to see more pressure. I honestly believe that it’s a problem that just keeps growing, and everybody needs to be aware of the fact. . . . They need to be managed.”
Story here.