Does anyone know if they are still trapping wolves in the Snake River - Entry point 84 area? I will be there this spring with my dog and am wondering if diligence is still needed to keep away for the wolf sets.

Bob.

Why were they trapping wolves there?

I do not know why - I but I was told trapping was going on last year. I have not been there ever before so that is the reason for my post - to see trapping is going on. I was curios to know if that was indeed happening and If so, can dogs get into the traps. I am not trying to alarm anyone, I guess I am really just looking to see if it is true.

Bob.

Several years ago I ran into a couple of guys doing that to tag wolves. They would go in an area for a couple of weeks, then move to a different area. There were signs posted warning dog owners.

Thanks Boonie,

I bet that is what this is all about. I appreciate the reply.

Bob.

we ran into this same sign in late sept 2009 on the portage between cap and vee. spooky in that area. lots of wolf poop with bone fragments...

I talked to a pair of guys trapping wolves last Sept. I saw the sign from afar and thought "WTF??? Are there people hunting who posted signs or something?"

Waved at a passing canoe a few times over 3 days. Ended up following them out on our day out. Talked at portages. They had been in for 26 days I believe. They were radio-collaring wolves for the US Geological Survey.

I didn't ask what the purpose was but I am assuming it is a study to better understand how wolf movement and migration relates to topography, or maybe if there are types of areas/habitat that are preferred by wolves.

Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly.

quote mastertangler: "Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly."

I can't help but wonder if we would all be better off if you stuck to the fishing forum where you at least appear to know what you are talking about.

quote jamotrade: "

quote mastertangler: "Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly."

I can't help but wonder if we would all be better off if you stuck to the fishing forum where you at least appear to know what you are talking about.

So if someones opinion is different than yours, they shouldn't be allowed to make a comment?

quote mutz: "

quote jamotrade: "

quote mastertangler: "Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly."

I can't help but wonder if we would all be better off if you stuck to the fishing forum where you at least appear to know what you are talking about.

So if someones opinion is different than yours, they shouldn't be allowed to make a comment?"

Easy now. Don't forget The Oath.

quote jamotrade: "

quote mastertangler: "Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly."

I can't help but wonder if we would all be better off if you stuck to the fishing forum where you at least appear to know what you are talking about."

That was a rude comment. I've actually heard the same thing from different sources in wisconsin when we had our brief foray into wolf hunting...that they are a very difficult animal to hunt or trap. I also think it's a valid point to wonder about how many animals they're capturing and what exactly they're trying to learn, given tax dollars are being spent on it. I'm not sure why you were so hostile to this post but most people on this site don't take kindly to people taking rude and unprovoked pot shots at someone who wasn't personally fired at first.

Sorry for letting my emotions come out through my fingers on that one. I shouldn't have responded right away and I usually don't in those situations.

I get easily irked by those who I perceive to be armchair biologists taking shots at legitimate science. MT has seemed to be ready to rip anything and everything from the government. Not saying they do everything right, but government scientists from the USFWS, USFS, etc are not wasting our money by gathering data on our flora and fauna and attempting to provide real info in the pursuit of proper management.

I worked for the USFS in Arizona and I can tell you firsthand how hard the armchair biologists and legacy landowners make it on researchers and land management scientists to do what is right with federal lands for all of us.

When it comes to fishing, I grab all that I can from MT's posts and that is an undisputed fact.

quote jamotrade: "Sorry for letting my emotions come out through my fingers on that one. I shouldn't have responded right away and I usually don't in those situations.

I get easily irked by those who I perceive to be armchair biologists taking shots at legitimate science. MT has seemed to be ready to rip anything and everything from the government. Not saying they do everything right, but government scientists from the USFWS, USFS, etc are not wasting our money by gathering data on our flora and fauna and attempting to provide real info in the pursuit of proper management.

I worked for the USFS in Arizona and I can tell you firsthand how hard the armchair biologists and legacy landowners make it on researchers and land management scientists to do what is right with federal lands for all of us.

When it comes to fishing, I grab all that I can from MT's posts and that is an undisputed fact."

It seems you are supporting a person who has no regard for wilderness park rules when it comes to destroying Wild Places . And this ani't the first time he bragged about it. Well, good for you. And BTW, his self inflated fishing knowledge is nothing more than delusional. Try it and see what happens. Just keep rubbing his narcissistic itch. He loves it.

quote mutz: "

quote jamotrade: "

quote mastertangler: "Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly."

I can't help but wonder if we would all be better off if you stuck to the fishing forum where you at least appear to know what you are talking about.

So if someones opinion is different than yours, they shouldn't be allowed to make a comment?"

+ 1
I would worry more about a wolf killing my dog then it get caught in a trap. Dogs are killed by wolves in Minnesota and Wisconsin all the time. mrp-wolves-killing-pets
It gets worse every year, so keep your pets close!!

No bigey from my perspective Jamotrade. Unload with both barrels if you want but I do have some intellectual honesty as well as experience on this particular subject having run trap lines in Michigan (lower and upper) and Washington state for several years. Coyotes and wolves are not easily trapped particularly with a steel trap and only the experts catch anything other than a yearling. Both can be snared however with some effectiveness provided an established trail can be made. Alaskan wolf trappers would use an entire moose and when the pack was using it heavily they would set snares on the established trails leading to the carcass.

To live trap a wolf seems like it would be exceedingly diffucult. To bring into question how effectively government uses our tax dollars does not make one anti science it only makes me intellectually curious......a trait which I personally believe is lacking among our populace. Unfortunately, as you so adeptly illustrated, to do so often invites various forms of personal attacks and some are reluctant to voice their opinions being cowed into politically correct positions lest they receive incoming fire.

I am open however to hearing the DNR perspective as to what they hope to ascertain, how successful they are and how much money they are using to achieve results. Our country is unique in human history as the government is to serve at the behest of the people. For me, or any American, to question the legitimacy of various government endavors and expenditures is not only perfectly natural it is our Patriotic duty IMO.

If you really want to find out how successful they are at trapping wolves and what they are doing with the collar info, just give them a call. The phone number is on the sign.

quote andym: "If you really want to find out how successful they are at trapping wolves and what they are doing with the collar info, just give them a call. The phone number is on the sign."

Excellent suggestion!

quote Solobob1: "Does anyone know if they are still trapping wolves in the Snake River - Entry point 84 area? I will be there this spring with my dog and am wondering if diligence is still needed to keep away for the wolf sets.

Bob."

The wolf center in Ely would know.

Also for people who have experience in trapping wolves,they trap rather easy.
I am sure many are radio tagged.

if they are radio tagged then the DNR would also be keeping track of their movement. they are moving south in the state of MN to where food is more readily available.

quote Mocha: "if they are radio tagged then the DNR would also be keeping track of their movement. they are moving south in the state of MN to where food is more readily available.
"

They have very viable populations just south of Brainerd at least 20 miles and west of Mille lacs now for about 10 years.
The Longville area wolf numbers came viable around 1990.
I know of twice in the last 10 years at least. Once souteast of Brainerd two years ago a Federal trapper caught and killed a pack of six after a farmer complained. Similar situation north of Crosby.

Actually much of its southern range and than north central area the population is down like 30-40% in the last three years. I think much of it is due to severe mange breakout. Also a couple of hard winters deer numbers have dropped as a source of food.

15 miles south of Brainerd 1 month ago-I see his track every few weeks

quote mastertangler: "Easier said than than done.......one of the most difficult animals to trap and most likely a fools errand especially without lifelong expertise. Your tax dollars at work........I can't help but wonder how many wolves were actually caught and collared and at what expense and to learn what exactly."

I have known a few wolf biologists, and they indeed can catch wolves in traps. It is not a fools errand. It doesn't require "lifelong expertise", it requires instruction from someone who has successfully trapped wolves before. When I was in graduate school, I met a young man from Italy who was in Minnesota learning to trap wolves from some Minnesota wolf researchers. He indeed was able to learn how to trap wolves. These people are not stupid. They have made it their life's work to study wolves. They know what they are doing.

I met a couple of biologists on Lake County 2 near the LTV tracks a few years ago. They were unsuccessfully trying to find a wolf that they suspected had a failed collar, and knew full well that they had trapped this wolf once but would be unlikely to get it a second time. They were part of the big moose study going on then.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the government is wasting money studying wolves, but if you think that wolf biologists are inept government workers futilely trying to trap wolfs, you are just plain wrong.

I think it is some of the best spent money in this country.

Help me understand, please. So what is threatening wolves that requires of millions of dollars on a state level and 10s of millions if not 100s of millions on a national level?

marsonite  what kind of traps do they use? Why is the moose study trapping wolves? They were looking for the wolf on the road ? Why did they think they would find it on the road? That's odd.

I have lived my life in the woods. I can tell you from first hand experience wolves are like rabbits, they have no problem populating!

Again to stay on topic. I would worry more about the wolves then the traps. I know of no pets caught in a wolf trap. I know of many pets wolves have killed. Last fall bird hunt I had 2 wolves stalking my dog. We went home!!

quote Pinetree: "I think it is some of the best spent money in this country."

Where do we go from here? Either you were just being over the top or else you have gone so far down the enviro road that you are lost and very confused.

It is the double standard of the current times. If someone so much as breathes any dissent or line of inquiry concerning the wisdom or efficacy regarding anything "environmental" then the militants immediately come out of the woodwork often insinuating the worst sorts of accusations (anti science, wants dirty air / water etc etc). And then the members of the militant enviro brigade say the most over the top ridiculous things (wolf studies are some of the most important money the government spends) and everyone just shrugs their shoulders.......double standard.

But let's advance the argument........let's say I was wrong in my "fools errand" comment and let's say that as Pine Tree suggests it's easy to trap wolves. There is no wrong in asking why and how much, period. It bears pointing out that wolves have been studied non-stop for at least 100 years and quite exhaustively. What exactly are they hoping to learn that they couldn't ascertain by applying the reams of information which has already been gathered?

What I do know are government departments have budgets. The way it works is if you don't use your allocated money in your budget it may very well get cut the following year. So lots of "creative" methods are employed to "use up" money allocated in a budget. In other words their is incentive to spend. I have an acquaintance who has worked for the government his entire life. He says he can't afford to retire because his pay is so good and he doesn't have to work very hard.......easy street. He also told me of how his department had end of the year meetings trying to figure out how to spend their remaining budget. One year they took 1 year old computers, trashed them for new ones.

For that reason, and others like it, I will just not bow down at the alter of all things environmental and serve the powers that be without question. Rather, the departments, biologists, researchers and politicians are answerable to the citizenry and need to provide plausible explanations for the use of tax dollars and grants.

Why does it matter? History has shown Republics don't last forever and 20 trillion in debt with over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities is a national security threat. It's time to stop this out of control spending and it can start with things like another "wolf study". At least until we get back on some reasonable semblance of economic stability.

marsonite  what kind of traps do they use? Why is the moose study trapping wolves? They were looking for the wolf on the road ? Why did they think they would find it on the road? That's odd.


"

To answer your question, they use standard leghold traps with offset jaws. As far as I know, they use what trappers call a "flat set", which is just a trap set next to a "scent post" so when the wolf comes to pee on it steps in the trap. Wolf researchers can trap when the weather is good so that helps a lot. I agree getting a dog caught such in a trap isn't that big of a deal provided you know how to get it open. After all, the goal is to catch a wolf and release it basically unharmed. There is no blood or broken bones involved.

I would guess that they were studying wolves as part of the moose research because they wanted to know how many wolves inhabited the study area and how many moose they killed. They use radio collars on wolves because they can get a series of locations and figure out what the home range size of the pack is. Wolves are territorial so you can estimate the size of the population by knowing how much territory a pack uses. That is really the only way to get a population estimate of wolves. Not exact but it's the best they got. Also through scat analysis etc you might be able to get an estimate of how many moose a pack of wolves kills.

The wolves had GPS collars which send location data to a satellite, but the GPS had failed. I didn't ask but I assume the collar also had an old school radiotelemetry signal. The collars would have a range of few miles from the ground. They told me they had also driven the Stony River Forest Road too so they were able to cover that area pretty well. Of course the quick way to find it is to get up in an airplane but that is expensive and they probably didn't have it in their budget to fly around looking for a wolf with a faulty collar.

Thanks. I had miss read and thought the collar had fallen off.
Photo from my collection. It was taken near Ely, I think Birch Lake.

This was when the government was paying good money to kill the wolves. Maybe we need somewhere in between ?

The new GPS radio technology is leaps and bounds ahead of the old telementry methods.

One reason we have an overpopulation of deer and other ecological imbalances is the lack of apex predators. Let them live and if they kill a cow or pet, c'est la vie. Frankly, the natural balance is more important to the future than a bit of income, a food animal or a pet... Sorry I am not going to buy into hunting or trapping (for any reason other than tracking studies) these amazing creatures. It was their home long before ours.

quote mapsguy1955: "One reason we have an overpopulation of deer and other ecological imbalances is the lack of apex predators. Let them live and if they kill a cow or pet, c'est la vie. Frankly, the natural balance is more important to the future than a bit of income, a food animal or a pet... Sorry I am not going to buy into hunting or trapping (for any reason other than tracking studies) these amazing creatures. It was their home long before ours. "

Since you live in Florida, you evidently have no idea what the wolf problem is in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan. The deer population in Michigan's upper peninsula has been devastated partly because of several very bad winters, but more because of the over population of wolves.

Your comments here would be like me saying they should never remove or kill any alligators in Florida just because they eat a few calves or pets in people's yards.

Like I said before it is called moderation and yea there should be a limited hunting season in Minnesota. I myself have no interest in hunting them.
The northern half of Minnesota the deer population is about 50% of what would be a nice balance. Winters are the number one cause at present and than about equal too many doe permits and yes wolf predation.
We don't need the two extremes we have had in the past. Even the limited season allowed in the past really had no long term biological effect on the numbers of wolves outside a very short time span. One of the biggest reason for wolf loss the last few years was extreme cases of mange.

Something I noticed not just on this forum but from other forums I visit . Opinions and speculation are more often presented rather than facts and personal experience.

quote Pinetree: "Also for people who have experience in trapping wolves,they trap rather easy.
I am sure many are radio tagged."

I don't think that is actually true. What makes wolves hard to trap is they have a large territory. They might be back in an area the next day or a month from now. So you might get a couple seemingly easy but many times it is a lot of work and time. I don't personally trap wolves so I can only talk from others experience, but that info came from a wolf expert from the USFWS.

Sounds like it was part of the DNR moose study. I do like the MN DNR. I feel they work a lot harder then they get paid and support their research. They aren't perfect but they try to be and usually when something goes wrong it is the politicians butting in causing the problem. Hope it helps them understand the moose issue and I agree money well spent.

I will add though that since they are still on the endangered list due to court order actions I believe the Government/USFWS is required to spend quite a bit of money to study them as well---it is out of their hands. I know people in the USFWS that work with endangered species that are frustrated by the money they waste as well. That's why they tried to de-list the wolf in MN---they need the money elsewhere for other declining species. I know off topic but it sort of covers and supports both sides of the wasting money issue. More often than not we are never completely right nor wrong.

T

quote timatkn: quote>

More often than not we are never completely right nor wrong.


T"

that sounds like a Yogi Berra quote. It's like Deja-vu all over again...

Wolves are easy to trap.......hmmmm. Perhaps, I have never tried to trap a wolf, but what I do know is fox are not easy and coyotes are harder than fox and I had assumed that wolves would be harder than coyotes.

Putting anything other than a yearling fox or coyote into a leg hold trap is not easy regardless of what one may read on the WWW. Certainly it can be done with effectiveness (the more you catch at one site the better that site becomes) but it is not easy and the amateur would likely bat zero his first season......I know I did. Think its easy, just try it.

I am not so sure I am for this reintroduction of coyotes, wolves and bears back into places they have long been absent. In Michigan we used to hunt pheasants and rabbits using bird dogs and beagles and spent much time afield when I was young. But surprise, surprise the coyotes have shown up and reproduced in great numbers. I haven't seen a pheasant in 20 years and rabbits are way down.

And of course I bet if you talked with ranchers out west they would have a story to tell that the media refuses to divulge in this politically correct world.

And now there is talk about reintroducing Grizzly into the Cascade mountains of Washington. People will die if this happens, it is only a matter of time. Just like when a Ranger in Glacier National Park confided to me that "the park doesn't manage the bears, the bears manage the park".

We are bordering on the tyranny of the majority........where your ability to hunt, fish and trap will be voted out of existence by people who never set foot into the woods other than to go for an occasional day hike.

Coyotes reintroduced themselves in Northern Illinois and are pretty common in rural areas. Once in a while one will show up in Chicago.

They have shown in areas like North Dakota,more coyotes-less Red fox and than less pheasant and duck predation. Coyotes don't like fox.
Past studies showed the biggest predator on pheasants was like egg eaters like raccoon and skunks. They completely eliminated fox in a duck study area,numbers might go up 17%. Eliminate the egg eaters completely they had a 100% increase in duck numbers.
This was a area with extreme removal.

Long term it was still habit and habitat if you want birds.

quote Blatz: "Coyotes reintroduced themselves in Northern Illinois and are pretty common in rural areas. Once in a while one will show up in Chicago."

Not trying to hijack this thread but Coyotes are living well in Chicago.

About 2,000 of the carnivores have adapted surprisingly well to city life, new images and tracking data reveal.

I'm aware of wolf reintroduction, but not bears and certainly not coyotes.

Where has this been done?

In northern Indiana where I grew up, I used to hunt quail & pheasant all the time as a kid. Blizzard of '78 put a dent into the populations, as did coyotes showing up a few years later, but habitat destruction was what seemed to really do them in.

quote LindenTree3: "

quote Blatz: "Coyotes reintroduced themselves in Northern Illinois and are pretty common in rural areas. Once in a while one will show up in Chicago."

Not trying to hijack this thread but Coyotes are living well in Chicago.


About 2,000 of the carnivores have adapted surprisingly well to city life, new images and tracking data reveal. "

They are a creature of extreme adaption. For a time they shunned human populations,but their natural habitat kept shrinking and they learned how to survive around people.

Also we use to have only coyotes up where I mainly deer hunt by Longville. About 45 miles north of Brainerd. Use to hear the coyotes in the evening while on deer stand. About 1990 wolves moved in and that was the end of coyotes in that area. Interesting tho we did get a increase of gray fox shortly after.

Coyotes will eat red fox (as will most things......a dead fox won't last long in the woods) but gray fox are more "cat-like" and can climb trees better than most would think and can avoid becoming the latest meal for Mr Coyote.

Habitat loss is the reason for pheasant and rabbit decline? Or "egg eaters" (A study proves it - your tax dollars at work) is the real reason for birds getting decimated. Believe what you want.....I say Bah-humbug. In the 50's 60's and 70's there were tons of birds and it was seldom you took a country drive without seeing the fine rooster pheasant. Were there less coons and possums?.........the "egg eating" culprits? Nay........those populations have remained constant.

But maybe its "habitat loss".........more "studies" perhaps which point to it being "our fault"? Nope, plenty of farms in rural areas where pheasant, rabbit, and even quail and grouse should do quite well.

The only thing largely different is the coyote. Repopulated naturally? I'm not so sure. Conspiracy theorist? Perhaps but I see what is happening at every level of government where they pretty much do what they want makes me slightly suspicious. We had rumors of government re-introduction in Michigan. Not sure its true but it wouldn't surprise me considering the misguided zeal of many in management positions who believe in the ethos of historical restoration and the "balance" of nature. Which of course is a ridiculous proposition.........nature does its balancing act very crudely and rudely. Boom and bust.......overpopulation and then disease.

Who figured out that DDT was the reason for the thinning of Bald Eagle egg shells? Creating a very low Eagle population. Now they're common place. I don't know the answer and I don't pretend to know that answer.

The pheasant boom in the late 50's and 60's was a benefit of good weather and habitat. Agriculture methods have changed drasically(sp) with road to road plowing. Corn fields the rows have zero weeds now. Also so little nesting habitat now the predator just walks down a small strip of grass now to figure where the hens nest is at present.
We had lot of pheasant even up to Mille lacs until the 1964 St. Patrick day blizzard which wiped them out. They never came back and most farming practices now there is not much left in the field in the winter. The 1940's the Brainerd had sharptail grouse everywhere now zero. Habitat change.
Wow wolves to pheasants wow topic. That's okay.

Off topic. I was think the same thing. But like you said its all good.

What next? From ddt to eagles eating pets. Full circle.

I know that trapping brings out a lot of emotion in people, much of which is based on old stories and methods of a much different day.

Many predators can be fairly easily trapped (including wolves), and can be radio collared, checked for conditions such as mange, or just having solid population estimates and general health analysis. I have personally been involved in the release of several wolves that have been caught in coyote traps. Once released, the wolves run into the woods with no issues.

As far as if there is any active trapping on going in the region, check with the USFS. Any trapping that would be ongoing, is that as part of a research project and would be being conducted with the blessing or at least knowledge of the USFS.

I am not trying to hijack this thread, but here is a short video about trapping, and the importance of it to wildlife management.

Destrying the Myth video

quote mastertangler: "Coyotes will eat red fox (as will most things......a dead fox won't last long in the woods) but gray fox are more "cat-like" and can climb trees better than most would think and can avoid becoming the latest meal for Mr Coyote.


Habitat loss is the reason for pheasant and rabbit decline? Or "egg eaters" (A study proves it - your tax dollars at work) is the real reason for birds getting decimated. Believe what you want.....I say Bah-humbug. In the 50's 60's and 70's there were tons of birds and it was seldom you took a country drive without seeing the fine rooster pheasant. Were there less coons and possums?.........the "egg eating" culprits? Nay........those populations have remained constant.


But maybe its "habitat loss".........more "studies" perhaps which point to it being "our fault"? Nope, plenty of farms in rural areas where pheasant, rabbit, and even quail and grouse should do quite well.


The only thing largely different is the coyote. Repopulated naturally? I'm not so sure. Conspiracy theorist? Perhaps but I see what is happening at every level of government where they pretty much do what they want makes me slightly suspicious. We had rumors of government re-introduction in Michigan. Not sure its true but it wouldn't surprise me considering the misguided zeal of many in management positions who believe in the ethos of historical restoration and the "balance" of nature. Which of course is a ridiculous proposition.........nature does its balancing act very crudely and rudely. Boom and bust.......overpopulation and then disease. "

Where I grew up, there's less idle land and pasture. Fence rows are either gone completely or farmed to the very edge. Rock piles have been buried. Ditch and creek banks have smaller buffer zones. There are no longer grasses and seed producing weeds in great abundance, thanks to increased herbicide use (Roundup Ready and Liberty grains). CRP land started going away in large chunks starting around '08 and isn't coming back anytime soon. The eyeball test driving through IL, OH, MI, IA, etc... shows the same thing. You can scoff if you'd like, but I firmly believe habitat loss plays a large part. All you need to do is research it.

Pheasants Declining in MN
SE Nebraska Pheasant Decline
Habitat Loss via Pheasants Forever
Michigan
Another Midwest Study about lack of habitat

Habitat is number 1

When I have driven through Nebraska I can concede habitat loss.......mile upon mile upon mile of corn rows. Super farms which utilize every square inch of land. So yes habitat loss is a concern when the smaller farmer gets squeezed out.

But when I drive through the rural areas of Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and Wisconsin I see plenty of family farms which are filled with plenty of small wood lots and fence rows looking very similar to what I grew up hunting.

I digress but if you care about habitat loss then one should care about the estate tax (death tax) where family farms may be in jeopardy of not being passed on via inheritance due to such negative unfair redistributive tax policies.

I have seen signs posted along the Pow Pow trail as far back as 25 years ago about wolf trapping for radio colloring(sp) and have seen the workers out there.

quote mastertangler: "When I have driven through Nebraska I can concede habitat loss.......mile upon mile upon mile of corn rows. Super farms which utilize every square inch of land. So yes habitat loss is a concern when the smaller farmer gets squeezed out.


But when I drive through the rural areas of Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and Wisconsin I see plenty of family farms which are filled with plenty of small wood lots and fence rows looking very similar to what I grew up hunting.


I digress but if you care about habitat loss then one should care about the estate tax (death tax) where family farms may be in jeopardy of not being passed on via inheritance due to such negative unfair redistributive tax policies. "

Most small family farms are protected by the 5 million dollar exclusion from inheritance tax. There are other ways they can also be protected. I don't think this is unfair at all.

I just did a zillo search for farm land in IL. If not near a town I found it selling for 10K to 20k per acers. To make a living farming today you need 500 acres. That’s 5 million dollars and you will need an additional ½ million in equipment + a home. You are setting at 6 million for good soil and equipment. The farms have been broken up and most farmers can no longer afford the land so they rent.

quote MagicPaddler: "I just did a zillo search for farm land in IL. If not near a town I found it selling for 10K to 20k per acers. To make a living farming today you need 500 acres. That’s 5 million dollars and you will need an additional ½ million in equipment + a home. You are setting at 6 million for good soil and equipment. The farms have been broken up and most farmers can no longer afford the land so they rent. "

That is the trouble,a individual farmer can sub divide his land and retire forever. But lon term farming and wildlife get hurt forever.

quote Pinetree: "They have shown in areas like North Dakota,more coyotes-less Red fox and than less pheasant and duck predation. Coyotes don't like fox.
Past studies showed the biggest predator on pheasants was like egg eaters like raccoon and skunks. They completely eliminated fox in a duck study area,numbers might go up 17%. Eliminate the egg eaters completely they had a 100% increase in duck numbers.
This was a area with extreme removal.


Long term it was still habit and habitat if you want birds."

As an avid Pheasant hunter I have to agree, I've seen some of the same studies. There have been a few where more coyotes equals more pheasants for the same reasons you mentioned above. A coyote will eat a Pheasant but more likely will eat skunks, raccoons, fox which prey more of Pheasant. Of course if you can rake all the predators out that would be even better, but in today's world coyotes appear to indirectly help pheasants more than harm---at the very least they are way down on the list for culprits in affecting Pheasant numbers. Sort of surprised me, but makes sense if ya think about it.

The number one issue with pheasants is habitat. I think in the Midwest there is 10% of what was available to pheasants the 60's for habitat and the habitat is low quality which allows predation to be easier. It is amazing they do as well as they do today---but my dog and I still love to chase them!!

quote timatkn: "

quote Pinetree: "They have shown in areas like North Dakota,more coyotes-less Red fox and than less pheasant and duck predation. Coyotes don't like fox.
Past studies showed the biggest predator on pheasants was like egg eaters like raccoon and skunks. They completely eliminated fox in a duck study area,numbers might go up 17%. Eliminate the egg eaters completely they had a 100% increase in duck numbers.
This was a area with extreme removal.



Long term it was still habit and habitat if you want birds."

As an avid Pheasant hunter I have to agree, I've seen some of the same studies. There have been a few where more coyotes equals more pheasants for the same reasons you mentioned above. A coyote will eat a Pheasant but more likely will eat skunks, raccoons, fox which prey more of Pheasant. Of course if you can rake all the predators out that would be even better, but in today's world coyotes appear to indirectly help pheasants more than harm---at the very least they are way down on the list for culprits in affecting Pheasant numbers. Sort of surprised me, but makes sense if ya think about it.


The number one issue with pheasants is habitat. I think in the Midwest there is 10% of what was available to pheasants the 60's for habitat and the habitat is low quality which allows predation to be easier. It is amazing they do as well as they do today---but my dog and I still love to chase them!!



"

You go back to the 60's and like corn had weeds between the rows and there has been a study or at least speculation those so called weeds with seeds etc. supplied food for the pheasants when they were at a young age. So much has changed on the landscape since the late 60's and still changing. You get a hard winter and birds have little protection from blowing snow you might wipe 90% out in one storm. Where is the winter habitat now for escape. Seen where there nostrils are just packed with snow,thus death.Maybe a cattail swamp or a small narrow woodlot.

Good point the winter cover is poor now compared to the past. Where we hunt we have been lucky that the winter cover is good, we never have a bad year, just some are crazy good while others are okay. Other areas with poor winter cover are more variable and boom/bust.

Good discussion.......

Tim I will correct you on one small point. Very few things in the wild eat raccoons. First off they are very tough customers. I had a dog which was the best kill dog anyone had ever seen on raccoons caught on the ground but most big hounds wanted help with dealing with raccoons. But even if coyote killed coons their meat is very unsavory to the animal community. Before I started selling skinned coon bodies for a couple bucks each I used to just dump them in a field. Nothing ate them. Animals like opossum, love beaver, any kind of cat and fox and coyote were also eaten with abandon.........but not raccoon.

Raccoons also populate rather well if given proper conditions having large litters and with few natural enemies they can become widespread. But during the time of the pheasant decline in Michigan fur prices were actually rather high and pressure was high. One year I was getting as much as $60 for a large prime coon hide and that without being stretched or dried. That is some big bucks and brought out quite a few guys.

Why did pheasant disappear? I honestly don't know........but why not blame it on the mangy coyote. Seems they have gotten the blame for everything else ;-)........just seems quite coincidental is all. More coyotes........and the pheasants all but disappeared. Everything else seems pretty constant.

Good discussion.......a bit meandering but still fun.

Tim I will correct you on one small point. Very few things in the wild eat raccoons. First off they are very tough customers. I had a dog which was the best kill dog anyone had ever seen on raccoons caught on the ground but most big hounds wanted help with dealing with raccoons. But even if coyote killed coons their meat is very unsavory to the animal community. Before I started selling skinned coon bodies for a couple bucks each I used to just dump them in a field. Nothing ate them. Animals like opossum, love beaver, any kind of cat and fox and coyote were also eaten with abandon.........but not raccoon.

Raccoons also populate rather well if given proper conditions having large litters and with few natural enemies they can become widespread. But during the time of the pheasant decline in Michigan fur prices were actually rather high and pressure was unrelenting. One year I was getting as much as $60 for a large prime coon hide and that without being stretched or dried. That is some big bucks and brought out quite a few guys. Get 6 or 8 coons in one night and you made some good money. Hard work yes, but it was also fun.

Why did pheasant disappear? I honestly don't know........but why not blame it on the mangy coyote. Seems they have gotten the blame for everything else ;-)........just seems quite coincidental is all. More coyotes........and the pheasants all but disappeared. Everything else seems pretty constant.

quote mastertangler: "Why did pheasant disappear? I honestly don't know........but why not blame it on the mangy coyote. Seems they have gotten the blame for everything else ;-)........just seems quite coincidental is all. More coyotes........and the pheasants all but disappeared. Everything else seems pretty constant. "

Everything else except the habitat.

quote Blatz: "Something I noticed not just on this forum but from other forums I visit . Opinions and speculation are more often presented rather than facts and personal experience. "

Or that opinions and speculation are presented AS indisputable facts.

I can't say what the cause is right now,but Minnesota pheasant population declined before there was even any coyotes hardly in the 70's. Drive down the road in southern Minnesota and in the late fall and winter all you seen was black gold. Barren fields with hardly no grass or wind rows. Remember in 1972 march blizzard fields were fairly bare but 20-30 feet of snow in wind rows and cattails the snow was at least level with the top of the cattails.
No cover-raptor birds get plenty along with other predators. Heck when the pheasant has a 6 foot wide area of grass to lay eggs even a dumb skunk or fox can find them. As long as we have poor habitat birds will be up and down,but more down.

I think the wolf must feel bad he got left out of the conversation.

As a result of widespread and steep population
declines, many grassland bird species
are now of conservation concern at both
state and federal levels (Askins et al. 2007). Alteration
and loss of habitat (including fragmentation)
are considered to be among the most important
factors in these population declines (Brennan
and Kuvlesky 2005, Askins et al. 2007). Grassland
birds have faced wholesale changes in habitat
since settlement of North America by Europeans.
For example, native tallgrass prairie has been
reduced to a fraction of its historical acreage in
the U.S. (Samson et al. 1998). More recently, the
amount of nonnative grasslands has also declined
(Askins et al. 2007). In the Midwest, the recent
population declines of grassland birds are related
to rapid conversion, since the 1950s, of predominantly
grass-based agriculture (e.g., grass hay,
pasture, small grains) to one based on intensively
farmed habitats more hostile to birds [e.g., row
crops and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) hay] (Murphy
2003, Sample et al. 2003)

The complete scientific study if you have alot of time on your hand.

quote hooky: "

quote mastertangler: "Why did pheasant disappear? I honestly don't know........but why not blame it on the mangy coyote. Seems they have gotten the blame for everything else ;-)........just seems quite coincidental is all. More coyotes........and the pheasants all but disappeared. Everything else seems pretty constant. "

Everything else except the habitat."

Ok,Ok I get the big picture. The "lack of habitat" macro picture I am sure you guys are correct and have prevailed upon me. But......(you knew that was coming right ;-)

I am just looking at it from a personal experience perspective. Although the suburbs have expanded out to places I once hunted and trapped there are still many, many small farms with lots of cover like I used to see ( I still spend my summers in my old haunts of Michigan). Drive out past the urban sprawl and things look much the same as they did 40 years ago when a drive in the country would net you at least 1/2 dozen sighting of pheasants especially early in the mornings.

Shouldn't we at least get pockets of pheasants where habitat is still good? One thing I do know is now we have coyotes up the wazoo where we used to not have any, none, zero, nada.

Oh well.......the only sure thing in life is change.........wether its the weather or the environment change is the only sure thing on this planet. On the bright side we have plenty of turkeys now where before we didn't used to have any.........hey, wait a minute ;-)

Maybe pheasants went the way of the Dodo birds. Science has pretty much nailed down why they went extinct.



Documentary on Dodo extinction