Preying on the predators

[Rhizomorph13]

This thread actually has people defending Coyotes...

There is another leg in the coyote-deer-? interaction that nobody has mentioned, ticks.

When deer populations get to large not only do coyote populations increase but so do tick populations and eventually they will start having an adverse reaction to the general health of the deer as well as increased incidents of Lyme Disease and many other diseases. https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/...eases.html

I've learned that hunting is one of the greatest supporters of well controlled populations. Even legal trophy hunters select their prey very carefully and the money they spend furthers the survivability of the population they are hunting from. It is very counter-intuitive but true non-the-less.

[Mister Agenda]

I have a bait pile of 2 deer carcasses out.

I'm going to sit in my blind tonight with a spotlight equipped  AR15 and a night vision scope and bore holes in a coyote.

They're getting thick around here.

...

Yes, because using a weapon of war capable of spraying while using scent to trick animals to come in to range takes so much more skill than a single shot 22 rifle.

Easy to play darts when you are two inches from the board.

But lets talk about switches and triggers shall we? 

Before you once again stupidly claim I am against hunting, let me state again, I AM NOT. But don't act like you need an AR15 or claim it is a sport.

Humans were hunting animal meat long before the first guns existed. Needing food 100,000 or 200,000 years ago existed, and yes, humans eat other animals like other mammals and fish. And they survived and thrived and still ate meat without weapons of war. 

Color me unimpressed. I eat beef, I eat pork, I have had deer, and dove and croc. But I don't feel the need to brag about fooling myself into thinking killing life that does not have an equal shot to defend itself is some thing to brag about. 

Life eats other life, yes. But humans are ourselves the most dangerous invasive species on the planet when it comes to valuing our own survival. How about you worry less about your ego, and weapons, and simply admit, hunting can be a cheaper way to find food without bragging about it?

---

I have a bait pile of 2 deer carcasses out.

I'm going to sit in my blind tonight with a spotlight equipped  AR15 and a night vision scope and bore holes in a coyote.

They're getting thick around here.

...

A couple weeks ago you bragged about deer season opening.

So how exactly are the Coyotes wrong for wanting to find food themselves?

Neither the deer or the Coyote had access to an AR15.

Varmint shooting to reduce a troublesome wildlife population isn't a sport, it's a task; one that AR-15s are well-suited for in the case of coyotes.

---

Things were fine until humans came along. Some humans didn't mess with the wolves, and things were fine.

It's called competition......

Farmers got sick of feeding thevwolves with their livestock.

That any human cares that wolves survive simply shows our capacity for empathy.

Trust me - if the wolves figured out a way to anhilate us - we would be gone faster than the dodo.....

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-t...-ecosystem

[Rhizomorph13]

Oh and I prefer my mini-14 to an AR-15. I like the look of my folding stock.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fun semi aside.

Poorly funded and implemented conservation programs and our under-controlled pest populations actively work together to make the types of invasive brush where semi auto carbines outperform any other rifle on just about every measure.

As alluded to in one of those links, in the eastern us the whitetail deer explosion was a result of an equally historic reforestation. 100 years ago a hunter in the SE US would have been looking at alot of post to post shots over cultivated land. Today, they're hiking through claustrophobic brush and young growth forest trying to take shots at moving targets within 50m, or ambushing them from stands just above the lower canopy cover - death from above.

Additionally, both those environments created and the relative lack of interest in hunting other species means that those other species are simultaneously on the decline and rifles designed for them in their environments have become niche use cases. When we consider that, alongside that reforestation and that change in the populations of games species (and primarily because of it, and even included in it) there's been a loss of value or wealth in rural america....it becomes easy to see how relatively inexpensive short and light rifles with a high rof chambered for affordable and widely available rounds came out on top.

-and that's before they painted them black and marketed them to people who think that they might be the kind of guy who would kill a stranger over a tv in the dark of the night.

[The Architect Of Fate]

To the argument that hunting funds conservation, as well as the idea deer, have to be culled. I beg the differ. But remember everyone who disagrees with culls is just an animal activist who wants all the deer to die 

https://www.truthordrought.com/hunting-f...tion-myths
https://www.wyofile.com/wp-content/uploa...MITH-1.pdf
https://www.centerforwildlifeethics.org/...on-hunters
https://rewilding.org/hunting-isnt-conservation/
https://mountainlion.org/featurearticleg...ldlife.php
https://www.thoughtco.com/hunting-myths-...cts-127898
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/featur...ease-html/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3783476?seq=1
https://www.greenwichtime.com/local/arti...643259.php
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3801380?seq=1
https://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/guest...40209.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...017-1128-z
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2016/0...-cull.html

---

This thread actually has people defending Coyotes...

There is another leg in the coyote-deer-? interaction that nobody has mentioned, ticks.

When deer populations get to large not only do coyote populations increase but so do tick populations and eventually they will start having an adverse reaction to the general health of the deer as well as increased incidents of Lyme Disease and many other diseases. https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/...eases.html

I've learned that hunting is one of the greatest supporters of well controlled populations. Even legal trophy hunters select their prey very carefully and the money they spend furthers the survivability of the population they are hunting from. It is very counter-intuitive but true non-the-less.

The idea that culls reduce  Lyme Disease  is dubious 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/.../zph.12245
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26684932/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...me_Disease

[The Grand Nudger]

I want to stress that the whole point of well managed hunting is to not have to do culls in the first place. To not be in that situation. I think that there's a very specific circumstance where criticism of culling applies. When bcc is high and ccc is low. It's not biologically necessary to cull those deer. The town has a financial or social interest in culling them.

There are clear site demonstrations of deer managed for hunting at historic levels which don't destroy biodiversity, they increase it. Which manage the population well below ccc while increasing the bcc. I think that, rather than paying for these expensive and ineffective culls, or planning not to plan - just letting nature run it's course...they should use those models to generate income for their communities and their conservation efforts.

I know that animal activists don't want to kill animals, but the actions we take and policies we support don't always have the effect we might intend.

---

Put a simpler way....with respect to what I think each group wants....

Hunters want there to be more and healthier game.
Animal activists want there to be fewer hunters.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I want to stress that the whole point of well managed hunting is to not have to do culls in the first place. To not be in that situation. I think that there's a very specific circumstance where criticism of culling applies. When bcc is high and ccc is low. It's not biologically necessary to cull those deer. The town has a financial or social interest in culling them.

Well managed hunting is a myth 

There are clear site demonstrations of deer managed for hunting at historic levels which don't destroy biodiversity, they increase it. Which manage the population well below ccc while increasing the bcc. I think that, rather than paying for these expensive and ineffective culls, or planning not to plan - just letting nature run it's course...they should use those models to generate income for their communities and their conservation efforts.

1.Really care to give an example (then watch me refute it)

Put a simpler way....with respect to what I think each group wants....

Hunters want there to be more and healthier game.
Animal activists want there to be fewer hunters

Nah i have a better one 

Hunters want game they don't care how they get it 
Animal activists want more and healthier animals but don't believe hunting is a good solution to the problem

[arewethereyet]

I want to stress that the whole point of well managed hunting is to not have to do culls in the first place. To not be in that situation. I think that there's a very specific circumstance where criticism of culling applies. When bcc is high and ccc is low. It's not biologically necessary to cull those deer. The town has a financial or social interest in culling them.

Well managed hunting is a myth 

There are clear site demonstrations of deer managed for hunting at historic levels which don't destroy biodiversity, they increase it. Which manage the population well below ccc while increasing the bcc. I think that, rather than paying for these expensive and ineffective culls, or planning not to plan - just letting nature run it's course...they should use those models to generate income for their communities and their conservation efforts.

1.Really care to give an example (then watch me refute it)

Put a simpler way....with respect to what I think each group wants....

Hunters want there to be more and healthier game.
Animal activists want there to be fewer hunters

Nah i have a better one 

Hunters want game they don't care how they get it 
Animal activists want more and healthier animals but don't believe hunting is a good solution to the problem

This is bullshit and you know it.

This is another of your bash OLB diatribes.  Maybe post another dozen or so links, that'll bring everyone over to your way of thinking.

Why don't you just stay away from OLB posts...save yourself and the rest of us the heartburn of your dick waving contests.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well managed hunting is a myth 

There's always room for improvement, but if that were just true - then we would have yet another reason for creating well managed hunting areas.

1.Really care to give an example (then watch me refute it)

Ill let you let wonder lead you to knowledge on this one.  Maybe check a few of your own links? I'm not sure why you think you could refute a site demonstration in the first place. That's not how that works. They exist. We could suggest that they won't work here or there or for this species or that species for any number of reasons, but denying that deer are managed on hunting land in such a way as to promote their health and the biodiversity of the managed land is a fools errand. It's what we're doing, we'd like to do it even better.

Hunters want game they don't care how they get it 

Well, that's obviously not going to work - so those hunters either have to be educated or they're not going to get what they want any way.  Big pops of healthy animals in stable forests don't just happen.  It takes alot of time and money and effort.  

Animal activists want more and healthier animals but don't believe hunting is a good solution to the problem

Their alternative, planning to have no solution and calling whatever happens Natural™.  That is not a credible alternative, even if hunting is a bad solution.

An analogy, starting an open fire in your living room would be a bad solution to the problem of freezing to death - but it will keep you warm long enough to come up with a better one. We may find a better way to fund and manage our conservation lands some day. If we reconsider the problem as the problem of conservations dependence on funds from hunting - it's a simple issue of figuring out who else might voluntarily cough up all that dough and labor.

Whos got them deep, deep pockets and nothing better to do with their time?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well managed hunting is a myth 


1.Really care to give an example (then watch me refute it)


Nah i have a better one 

Hunters want game they don't care how they get it 
Animal activists want more and healthier animals but don't believe hunting is a good solution to the problem

This is bullshit and you know it.

This is another of your bash OLB diatribes.  Maybe post another dozen or so links, that'll bring everyone over to your way of thinking.

Why don't you just stay away from OLB posts...save yourself and the rest of us the heartburn of your dick waving contests.

1. Nope I say it without fear or doubt conservation is an excuse nothing more 

2.Nope has zilch to do OLB and you can whine about presenting evidence for my case all you like.

3.How about instead I post where ever I want and criticize whatever I want and you just don't read it.