# Delta Waterfowl



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I read in the Delta Site that the only way Delta Waterfowl think's you can increase nest/hatch sucess rates is to provide more habitat. I think you have overlooked the most important thing and that is nest predators. We believe if you put a bounty on coyote we will catch more other type nest predators too. The point being we need to get more people trapping the small predators.

It's not always about aquiring more leases and lands, sometimes it's about managing what you allready have. I hope those Dr's and Lawyers can understand this.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Delta's latest magazine had a huge feature on predator management, and how important it is compared to DU's "habitat only" approach.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Ya Chris when i see a bounty on nest predators I'll know their done talkin and are trying to manage what they allready have.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Isn't there a theory that more coyotes = less fox = less nest predation?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

There is that theory, I see it being practiced every day. The problem with that is 30 lb. coyotes eat more than 15 lb. fox do.

I have trapped and know for every coyote you catch you will probaly catch 1 fox, 2 skunks, 3 crows etc... so by putting a bounty on the largest of the nest predators it will cause a much greater number of the smaller nest predators to be caught also. If you do the math you are eliminating an average of 6 other nest predators for each coyote.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I am certainly not sure, but I think I have seen some research out there suggesting that coyotes are much less effective avian predators than some of the smaller predators upon which they predate. I will do a quick search, but I think that they actually eat more mice and ground squirells than birds, along with the larger animals that they can harvest that fox cant. So while I would agree that a **** or fox bounty would be a god thing as long as it could be targeted into certain areas, I am not sure a coyote bounty would not eventually be counterproductive, at least from a waterfowl production standpoint.

Tom


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

No Problem, right where I left it. Here you go.

Differential Effects of Coyotes and Red Foxes
on Duck Nest Success
Marsha A. Sovada1, Alan B. Sargeant2, and James W. Grier3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: Low recruitment rates prevail among ducks in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America, primarily because of high nest depredation rates. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a major predator of duck eggs, but fox abundance is depressed by coyotes (Canis latrans). We tested the hypothesis that nest success of upland-nesting ducks is higher in areas with coyotes than in areas with red foxes. We conducted the study during 1990-92 in uplands of 36 areas managed for nesting ducks in North Dakota and South Dakota. Overall nest success averaged 32% (95% CI = 25-40) on 17 study areas where coyotes were the principal canid and 17% (CI = 11-25) on 13 study areas where red foxes were the principal canid (P = 0.01). Both canids were common on 6 other areas, where nest success averaged 25% (CI = 13-47). Habitat composition, predator communities with the exception of canids, and species composition of duck nests in coyote and red fox areas were similar overall. Upon examining only nests with ≥6 eggs on the last visit prior to hatch or depredation, we determined nests with evidence characteristic of fox predation accounted for 4% of depredated nests in coyote areas and 27% in fox areas (P = 0.001). An expanding coyote population is contributing to higher overall nest success. Management of coyotes may be an effective method for increasing duck nest success. 
Key words: Canis latrans, coyote, nest success, North Dakota, Prairie Pothole Region, predation, red fox, South Dakota, Vulpes vulpes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This resource is based on the following source (Northern Prairie Publication 0921): 
Sovada, Marsha A., Alan B. Sargeant, and James W. Grier. 1995. 
Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest 
success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(1):1-8.

This resource should be cited as:

Sovada, Marsha A., Alan B. Sargeant, and James W. Grier. 1995. 
Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest 
success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(1):1-8. Jamestown, 
ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. 
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000 ... feffct.htm 
(Version 31OCT2000).


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Differential Effects of Coyotes and Red Foxes
on Duck Nest Success
Management Implications

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predator community composition is important to consider when evaluating duck nest success. Investigators should not assume that areas near each other have equivalent predator communities. Sargeant et al. (1993) showed that change from a predominantly coyote area to a predominantly fox area can occur in <1.6 km. One of our fox areas was only 5 km from a coyote area; nest success was 2% in the fox area and 32% in the coyote area. Composition of the predator community in an area may change from 1 year to the next (Sargeant et al. 1993). 
Major change is occurring in the distribution and abundance of canids in the PPR of North Dakota and South Dakota; coyote populations are expanding. This change has important ramifications to waterfowl research and management. If the trend continues, duck nest success may be higher than it has been since the 1940s when foxes were the principal canid in much of this area (Johnson and Sargeant 1977, Sargeant et al. 1993, Sovada 1993). Our results are from publicly owned land managed for duck production, but the differential effects of coyotes and red foxes probably apply to duck production in all lands in the sampled localities. If effects of the canid community on duck nest success are as substantial in all lands as we found, it is difficult to envision other factors that could have greater positive influence on duck nest success in the PPR, except possibly major changes in agricultural programs, climate, or other predator populations.

In most areas, substantial coyote mortality is caused by humans (Harrison 1986, Voigt and Berg 1987, Gese et al. 1989). In the PPR, this source of mortality was believed to be the principal cause of low coyote populations (Johnson and Sargeant 1977, Sargeant et al. 1993). Thus, distribution and abundance of coyotes, and hence foxes, in much of the PPR probably can be manipulated by regulating coyote harvest. Managing coyote harvests may be a cost-effective means for increasing duck nest success on public and private lands. Disease also may regulate numbers of coyotes and foxes, but has not been reported as a major factor in long-term overall abundance of either species in the PPR.

Management to maintain or increase coyote populations is not without consequence; coyotes prey on big game species and livestock (Till and Knowlton 1983, Harrison and Harrison 1984, Andelt 1987). Coyotes also may have deleterious effects on ground-nesting bird species such as Canada geese, which may be able to defend themselves and their nests from foxes (Hanson and Eberhardt 1971, Campbell 1990). However, on the basis of findings of Sargeant et al. (1987) and Harrison et al. (1989), we believe a density of about 1 family (2-4 ad)/25 km² would be optimal to depress fox populations and benefit nesting ducks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I am basing what I say on what I see and have done... I'm not sure what others have found. I suppose when they are in the cattails hunting mice they will stumble across a few nests.It could very well be true that coyotes would pass on a meal of eggs or hatchlings but I doubt it. A bounty on any or all nest predators would be a good idea but doesn't change the fact that for every coyote trapped there will be more fox and other predators trapped also. Thanks for responding to my thoughts.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

tsodak that is very informative and interesting reading. I live in an area the coyote and fox share so I don't see the great differences found in the research programs. Again very good and very interesting, thank you for directing me to this info.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I know what you are saying. I grew up in an area that was very similiar, at first with many fox, now with many coyote, and a period with a good mix of both. All bird nesting successes have gradually inproved, and I saw the correlation. One complicating thing was the increase in raccoon and skunk along with the replacement of the fox by coyotes.

I guess the operative thing here is that you are never going to exterminate all small predators, nor should we. But what is the optimal mix of predators to have to maximize bird reproduction. Ideally you would like to have a predator that only fed on other smaller predators. Coyotes fill that role well for fox, somewhat for skunks, and least for racoons. If you can design that better predator, have at it.

There is a lot of good information of the Northern Prairie site. Good luck with it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

tsodak the better predator you speak of is here... you, me and all of us hunters!!!


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I do my part. I am a world class skunk hunter! I prefer the spot and stalk method. I am thinking of getting a Irish Setter as they great skunk dogs. Watch the wind Good luck


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Right On Old Hunter... there are not many things more exciting than being face to face with a skunk.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

I know something a little more exciting......Being face to butt with one!! :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

dblkluk :toofunny:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

First off, I am not anti predator hunting or trapping. I enjoy hunting coyotes and fox as much as the next guy. I do have a problem with predator management for increasing nest success. A lot of time when organizations such as Delta do there testing they try and trap all predators out of a area such as a township. Nest success of course goes through the roof. However this is as unnatural as having too many predators. There should be hunting and trapping seasons for predators, but if the only reason you are doing it is to create more birds for yourself to shoot, that is pretty damn selfish. It doesn't bother me a bit to see a mammalian predator hunting for nests or to have avian predators around either. I figure they need the meal worse than I do. That is what these birds are made for, they are part of the food chain.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey muzzy it sounds like you have seen something most of us haven't. Thats what these forums are all about sharing experience and information. I was just trying to see if there is interest in another way of getting kids into the hunt. Teaching them how to get wildlife without a gun is a good place to start. It doesn't surprise me what you say about Delta, they do studies then learn what they did later.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Muzzy I am not in disagreement with your concept of eliminating one to allow more of another species for man to harvest. however one needs to look at the overall population levels of the species.

Current levels of ducks by species range from the lowest in history for some to near record highs for the last 50 years. THe same for many species of geese. While on the other hand other than fox we are at record levels of skunks and raccoons along with avrain predators such as crows and hawks. For the predator levels they are a direct cause of mans intervention into nature. Farming and shelter belt plantings and a host of other factors have contributed to there increase. Mother nature would affect change with starvation and disease that saw the populations cycle up and down. But today we have insulated them by and large from starvation.

Waterfowl have been dealt a blow for the same reasons. Farming practices have reduced habitat which has reduced nesting success to levels as Bioman pointed out earlier that even without hunting will see the extntion of many species in the next few centuries. Man has created this situation so we should also help in correcting it.

If it means predator management, and the result is more birds for hunters, the benifit of that is a continued interest in the waterfowl to sustain the restoration efforts. The spotted owl and other nongame species recieve little in the way of fanfare or discussion compared to Canvasbacks or Sprig or Bluebill's.

More birds to hunt is the loss leader of the sale and will result in more habitat and increased nesting success which in the long run will mean the survival of the species.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Ron,

I never said I was against harvesting predators as long as there is a reason for it such as population management. I am against elimination or destroying them for the sole purpose of producing more birds for the sole purpose of having more to shoot.


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

I totally agree with Muzzy. Why interfear with mothernature and its cycle of natural selection?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Muzzy the reason is we have upset the apple cart as people. To eliminate them completely is not the goal nor should it be. To try and reset the balance has a dual effect. One it will ensure that waterfowl survive and that the health and safety of other animals and people. Rabies have reached all time highs and Tsodak might be able to provide a little more on that. Rabies can affect both wild and domestic livestock and pets. Hech a couple years ago the Edgeley school district had a crisis because some puppies where brought into a class that had been exposed to rabies.

In Nortonville a young child was biten in town by a coyote and had to undergo rabies treatment. Having a coyote in the middle of a small town attack a child indicates that population levels are above safe coexistance.

One needs to move beyond the simple thought that killing predators is only to benifit ducks. There are a bunch of good reasons to pursue PM.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Found this on thr Fuge!

Just a little something I thought everyone here would be interested in. Courtesy of Crowbusters.com

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where their ranges overlap, crows severely impact the annual waterfowl populations. When the hens begin laying, crows break open and eat the eggs. Later they will return and devour the fledglings. In the 40's a biological survey was conducted that really shows the damage crows can cause to the waterfowl in the Canadian "Duck Factory". It was shown that crows in close proximity to duck nesting areas took an average of 110 to 120 eggs or fledglings per crow per year, approximately 20,000,000 ducks. During the same year, sportsman only took 11,000,000 ducks. A common slogan of the time was "Kill a crow, Save a duck". At a time when waterfowl seasons are being dramatically reduced and even canceled, the survival rate of waterfowl at their breeding grounds is paramount. Shooting crows can make a real difference.

Crows also are the biggest carriers of West Nile


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Ron, we are on the same page, but you are trying to make an argument where there is none. I am all in favor of predator control if it is in the interest of the predator for reasons such as population control. If there are too many of a certain kind of predator, by all means kill some of them. These are two totally different issues one being population control of predators who may be exceeding their carrying capacity vs. controlling them to perpetuate another species for eventual end use by us as hunters.

My only point was if you are controlling predators to increase birds for the sole end result of being able to harvest more birds, it is wrong. There are far too many people that want to kill a predator because it ate one of "Their" birds. In hunting we are taking off the surplus animals. This surplus comes after all of the other natural mortality factors such as disease, starvation, climate effects, accidents, and yes even predation.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I will agree with Muzzy that killing predators SOLEY to increase duck numbers for hunting is wrong. However I think we both know that the idea is far more complex than that. While some of the individuals who are giving money to manage predators might give that money to keep a fox from eating one of MY ducks, the biologists who are running these programs do not think that way, at least I do not believe they do. The fact of the matter is, as Ron has said, the habitat for small predators on the plains has dramatically changed in the past 100 years, and that has been to the detriment of nesting waterfowl. It is not wrong, IMHO, to try to manage those predators in selected areas to try and achieve presettlement nesting conditions. i.e. abscence of skunk and raccoon. Increasing escape cover and abscence of fire favors these predators, man is the only thing that helps us set them back. Phones ringin' gotta go.....


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Tsodak, we are definately on the same page, we do need to control predators, we control all game animals. The start of this thread was controlling predators for increased nest success. I have always had a beef with Delta, because they do their predator trapping for the sole purpose of increased nest success, and they try to kill every predator in their test areas. There are people who would like to have this policy every where. There are definately benefits to predator trapping, but they do it for the wrong reason.

Having massive nesting areas such as CRP help alleviate nest predation also. When everything is cropped, and all nesting takes places in linear areas such as fence rows, ditches, this also leads to increased predation. It is easier for a predator to efficiently hunt a fence line than a section of grass. Habitat! Habitat! Habitat!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Muzzy I am on the same page with you. My intent was not to be arguementative but more to infom what I have seen and read.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Things were better when we had trappers. The utilization of the fur and extra income for country people was justification. They are mostly gone. So is my spot and stalk of skunks ethical? I'm doing it for the ducks.


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

Is there still a market for furs in ND or has it dwindled off? The market here in AK seems to be pretty good. I know a lot of the tourist buy it and most of them are from the lower 48 and Canada.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Porckchop...we have a steady fur market here in ND. Pretty low price and hardly worth the time and expense of going out to hunt them. Here's some prices: whole fox prime large $15.00
Coyote $25.00
jackrabbit for jackalope $1.00
racoon $10.00 
Not much going on for trappers.


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

I will have to see what the prices are up here. I guess I would have thought there was like a universal market. Of course if you get a bunch of fox or coyote it could add up. I always wanted to trap. No prices on skunks huh??


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Well it is selection year so I'm sure we will see alot of high priced skunks roaming the country. Looks like another selection with no real choices.

I think the relationship between fox and coyote is like that of the deer and moose. The moose being bigger eats alot more than a deer and alot of the same things a deer eats. The coyote eats mostly the same things as a fox just more of it because it is twice as big and needs more food to sustain itself. With the coyote eating a great portion of available food the fox must move on.

Actually a fox will gladly kill and eat a skunk where a coyote will find something less offensive. I guess there are those that need to witness these things for themselves but the fox will kill more nest predators than a coyote.


----------

