- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Human habitat invasion is antelopes' worst worry
David Wolf, Arizona Daily Sun
02/14/2003
There are a few folks upset with the recent coyote hunt contest. They should be upset. But, the problem with their emotional reaction to the killing of coyotes for sport and to help out the struggling antelope herd is that their focus on the issue is, well, out of focus.
There is a myriad scientific research that shows the removal of coyotes from antelope fawning areas has a direct and immediate positive impact on antelope fawn survival. Anderson Mesa is one such area where research shows that for every 100 antelope does less than 40 fawns survive when coyotes are left to feed on the fawns as they are born.
During most years, less than 20 fawns per 100 does survive the coyote onslaught, and antelope usually have twins.
Research also shows that 40 fawns per 100 does must survive to maintain the antelope herd.
Further, research indicates that when coyotes are removed, specifically by aerial gunning just before the antelope drop their fawns, fawn survival meets or exceeds the population maintenance level.
So, the removal of coyotes works but is this where our focus should be?
As far as the coyote is concerned, the coyote population is doing just fine. Yes, individual animals die during coyote removal, but coyotes are in abundance and coyotes are a renewable resource. So does this make it the right management tool?
Research also shows that when you remove coyotes from large areas, other coyotes will simply move into the habitat, which is why this method of helping antelope must be repeated. Some research suggests that coyotes increase their production to fill habitat voids, but it is not proven that the gunning removal of coyotes from the small areas that make up antelope fawning areas has any impact on coyote reproduction rates.
The reason the ire of those opposed to coyote gunning is misplaced is the fact that man has altered the habitat so much that predator control is often the only short-term solution to a totally out of whack ecosystem.
Let's get away from coyotes and antelope for a moment and look at waterfowl.
Research in North Dakota and Canada on waterfowl habitat is a classic example of how man's
manipulation of habitat has a direct negative impact on waterfowl, the prey species, while at the same time having a positive impact on the predators that eat waterfowl and their eggs.
In the waterfowl example, man has taken former prairie pothole country and manipulated it to produce corn and wheat. Man also has moved in with cattle, sheep, hogs, pheasants, cats, chickens and who knows what else.
The result of this manipulation of habitat to provide you with corn flakes and bread, is that the predators have all the advantage due to expanded habitat and food sources, while the prey, waterfowl in this case, have had their habitat reduced and fragmented.
Waterfowl have a hard time finding places to hide their eggs, and as a result the predators have no problem making a meal of duck eggs and the hens trying to protect their eggs.
The studied removal of predators in these areas has a direct positive result on waterfowl reproduction success. Without predator control, waterfowl reproduction falls below the level of population maintenance; with predator control waterfowl numbers stabilize or increase.
Nesting success in predator-controlled areas averages 42 percent while dropping to 20 percent in uncontrolled areas. It is as simple as that. Not saying it is right but that is the way it is.
With this realization, the common argument of "letting nature take care of it" simply does not apply because of the manipulation of habitat. The same thing is true in regard to antelope in northern Arizona.
The habitat antelope depend on is shared with livestock, elk, housing developments and shopping malls, as well as coyotes. Some argue that decades of overgrazing has so altered antelope habitat that antelope does cannot hide their fawns. That is why the coyotes are so effective at killing antelope fawns.
Other pieces of the puzzle include the removal of wolves from Arizona decades ago. Wolves kill coyotes as competing predators and likely kept coyote numbers under better control than man has been able to do.
On top of this, we are in a drought of seven years duration and counting. Antelope can't raid the chicken coop or dine on feral house cats to survive during a drought.
Because of habitat manipulation, the removal of the wolf -- as a coyote control agent -- the fragmentation of antelope habitat by houses, malls, roads and fences as well as the drought, everything favors the coyote and not the prey.
Is coyote killing the right strategy? Perhaps it is in the short term.
Likely it will be our only alternative for as long as we want viable antelope populations because research also shows the key to wildlife populations is habitat. The same habitat that we have altered to support the human race does not support antelope or waterfowl but most small predators do just fine.
In the waterfowl example, habitat that has 40 percent or more grassy nesting cover achieves 40 percent or higher nesting success all by itself. These are areas that have not been plowed under. No predator control is needed here.
The opposite conditions apply to snow geese and eastern whitetail deer. Here, an overabundance of prey animals caused by habitat manipulation is causing habitat damage in the case of snow geese and automobile damage in the case of whitetail deer. Wildlife managers are using hunters to reduce those populations of prey animals to biologically acceptable levels
Habitat is where the ire, thought and research need to be focused. And each of us need to realize that just making a living as a human being has a negative impact on wildlife. That is why we must rely on research and mitigate our negative impacts.
David Wolf, a Flagstaff outdoorsman, can be reached at ddwolf@earthlink.net.
David Wolf, Arizona Daily Sun
02/14/2003
There are a few folks upset with the recent coyote hunt contest. They should be upset. But, the problem with their emotional reaction to the killing of coyotes for sport and to help out the struggling antelope herd is that their focus on the issue is, well, out of focus.
There is a myriad scientific research that shows the removal of coyotes from antelope fawning areas has a direct and immediate positive impact on antelope fawn survival. Anderson Mesa is one such area where research shows that for every 100 antelope does less than 40 fawns survive when coyotes are left to feed on the fawns as they are born.
During most years, less than 20 fawns per 100 does survive the coyote onslaught, and antelope usually have twins.
Research also shows that 40 fawns per 100 does must survive to maintain the antelope herd.
Further, research indicates that when coyotes are removed, specifically by aerial gunning just before the antelope drop their fawns, fawn survival meets or exceeds the population maintenance level.
So, the removal of coyotes works but is this where our focus should be?
As far as the coyote is concerned, the coyote population is doing just fine. Yes, individual animals die during coyote removal, but coyotes are in abundance and coyotes are a renewable resource. So does this make it the right management tool?
Research also shows that when you remove coyotes from large areas, other coyotes will simply move into the habitat, which is why this method of helping antelope must be repeated. Some research suggests that coyotes increase their production to fill habitat voids, but it is not proven that the gunning removal of coyotes from the small areas that make up antelope fawning areas has any impact on coyote reproduction rates.
The reason the ire of those opposed to coyote gunning is misplaced is the fact that man has altered the habitat so much that predator control is often the only short-term solution to a totally out of whack ecosystem.
Let's get away from coyotes and antelope for a moment and look at waterfowl.
Research in North Dakota and Canada on waterfowl habitat is a classic example of how man's
manipulation of habitat has a direct negative impact on waterfowl, the prey species, while at the same time having a positive impact on the predators that eat waterfowl and their eggs.
In the waterfowl example, man has taken former prairie pothole country and manipulated it to produce corn and wheat. Man also has moved in with cattle, sheep, hogs, pheasants, cats, chickens and who knows what else.
The result of this manipulation of habitat to provide you with corn flakes and bread, is that the predators have all the advantage due to expanded habitat and food sources, while the prey, waterfowl in this case, have had their habitat reduced and fragmented.
Waterfowl have a hard time finding places to hide their eggs, and as a result the predators have no problem making a meal of duck eggs and the hens trying to protect their eggs.
The studied removal of predators in these areas has a direct positive result on waterfowl reproduction success. Without predator control, waterfowl reproduction falls below the level of population maintenance; with predator control waterfowl numbers stabilize or increase.
Nesting success in predator-controlled areas averages 42 percent while dropping to 20 percent in uncontrolled areas. It is as simple as that. Not saying it is right but that is the way it is.
With this realization, the common argument of "letting nature take care of it" simply does not apply because of the manipulation of habitat. The same thing is true in regard to antelope in northern Arizona.
The habitat antelope depend on is shared with livestock, elk, housing developments and shopping malls, as well as coyotes. Some argue that decades of overgrazing has so altered antelope habitat that antelope does cannot hide their fawns. That is why the coyotes are so effective at killing antelope fawns.
Other pieces of the puzzle include the removal of wolves from Arizona decades ago. Wolves kill coyotes as competing predators and likely kept coyote numbers under better control than man has been able to do.
On top of this, we are in a drought of seven years duration and counting. Antelope can't raid the chicken coop or dine on feral house cats to survive during a drought.
Because of habitat manipulation, the removal of the wolf -- as a coyote control agent -- the fragmentation of antelope habitat by houses, malls, roads and fences as well as the drought, everything favors the coyote and not the prey.
Is coyote killing the right strategy? Perhaps it is in the short term.
Likely it will be our only alternative for as long as we want viable antelope populations because research also shows the key to wildlife populations is habitat. The same habitat that we have altered to support the human race does not support antelope or waterfowl but most small predators do just fine.
In the waterfowl example, habitat that has 40 percent or more grassy nesting cover achieves 40 percent or higher nesting success all by itself. These are areas that have not been plowed under. No predator control is needed here.
The opposite conditions apply to snow geese and eastern whitetail deer. Here, an overabundance of prey animals caused by habitat manipulation is causing habitat damage in the case of snow geese and automobile damage in the case of whitetail deer. Wildlife managers are using hunters to reduce those populations of prey animals to biologically acceptable levels
Habitat is where the ire, thought and research need to be focused. And each of us need to realize that just making a living as a human being has a negative impact on wildlife. That is why we must rely on research and mitigate our negative impacts.
David Wolf, a Flagstaff outdoorsman, can be reached at ddwolf@earthlink.net.
