If not 1080 how about......

L

LOWCOUNTRY

Guest
So ive listened to all the RAC's and Wildlife board meetings. It appears many think utah has a severe Coyote problem. So 1080 is Banned cuz it kills pretty much everything that scavenges. To aireal gun 1 coyote it costs in the neighborhood 355.00. Why not try growing parvo and distribute that heavily in fawning areas. It would be nearly as effective at 1080 and I believe it only affects canines. Thoughts?
 
If it really only does affect canines then... I can't imagine not using the stuff... I'd rather give 'em lead poisoning myself- but less dogs means more fawns living through the winter... So kill 'em all


"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24
 
I love to call em and smoke em too but if its as bad as its said to be and more people out educating em which seems to be the case where I call dogs. This may be the most effective way to do it. As long as it doesnt take tolls on other species like 1080 did which made it a political nightmare. Use it and use it heavy.
 
Its a pretty inhumane way to kill an animal, I doubt any government agency would put it into use.
 
So is aireal gunning, but we do it and do it a ton in Utah and we kill people doing it. I see no difference in the two. Not too mention the ones that dont die from the first hits but rather from infections later on. They are both inhumane and not clean. But its still cleaner then getting your ass ate off by a pack of coyotes. JMOP
 
In the days when we can send man to the moon and return him to earth, and send space ships to the far reaches of outer space, man could certainly develop a safe method to cut the coyote populations without hurting other species. When enough real need exists, it could be done.

Any good chemists want to make a ton of money?

Have a good one BB
 
I think coyotes are immune to parvo. However I think wolves are not. (hint hint)

However if UT is paying ariels at that much. Why not pay some hunters $100/dog.


Outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man.
 
>
>However if UT is paying ariels
>at that much. Why not
>pay some hunters $100/dog.
>

I guarantee a bounty of $100 would cut the coyote population to almost nothing.
 
There's a guarantee you couldn't back up on a bet. Coyotes are THE most adaptable animal on earth.

1080 is NEVER coming back. It was banned by the feds almost 40 years ago and won't be back.

Aerial gunning is expensive, high profile and I doubt it will be around too many more years.

Trapping... how many of you guys support trapping? Snares? Even in and around your homes and bird hunting areas? Steel leghold trapping is soon to be a lost art form that the antis will get banned in my lifetime.

Sport hunting? Just makes them more cagey. Refer to my first two sentences. Show me one place in the country where coyotes have been completely decimated by sport, or bounty, hunting and I will show you a coyote eating out of the dumpster at McDonalds in the middle of the night right under your happy meal nose.

Yes coyotes can be reduced. Yes they should be. The best thing that could happen to reduce mule deer depredation by coyotes would be a huge surge in the price of fur.
 
I agree a huge surge in fur would help, but you think PARVO wouldnt hammer their numbers. Especially if it was placed in fawning areas in the spring time when coyotes are having pups (pups are very suseptable to it). A few infected coyotes would spread it. Traps, calls, and aireal gunning is a drop in the bucket as to what a strain of parvo could do. Also a strain of PARVO could be maniuplated year after year to make it more lethal to those coyotes that survive it.
I really dont think it would ever be used (anti's would have a field day with it) but ive heard no discussion about it and the amount of dollars/lives lost on aireal gunning is insane. I just was curious if it has ever been used/discussed in this form that was my whole reason for starting this thread.
 
You are talking about biological warfare. First of all the antis would never allow it. Secondly neither would dog owners.
 
>You are talking about biological warfare.
>First of all the antis
>would never allow it. Secondly
>neither would dog owners.

+1


4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
Just from what I've seen in my day!

I have spent countless time trying to thin Coyotes in the last 30+ years!

Took a few out in my day!

But I don't think I ever made a difference?

The more Coyotes you shoot in an area there will be more Pups born/raised in that same area to compensate!

Just don't think we can hunt them hard enough to kill enough that will make a difference for the Deer Herd,I hate saying this but I've seen it first hand!

I honestly think it'll take more than hunting Coyotes to kill what needs to be killed,for GAWDS sake keep killing them though!

Gotta be some way of throwing them a Steak!:D

God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
 
Most (biologist, hunters, etc.) are in agreement that the best time to hammer coyotes is in the early spring, correct? What I have read leads me to believe coyotes should be heavily hunted just before fawns/calves are dropped.

Seems to me a significant bounty that encourages timely hunting that will have the greatest impact on fawn survival would make sense.

Continue hunting them in the winter like some do anyway. But - use the bounty to encourage 'out of season' hunting that will have a greater impact.

What am I missing?
 
They have a way to kill coyotes right now! CHOCOLATE! The state of California, along with Utah, did a study, with a form of chocolate, that proved deadly to coyotes. I sat threw a pesticide class in Cali, last year and they showed the results of their findings on the results of the test . It was done in a kennel in Utah, something like 50 animals were fed the chocolate, two hours later 32 were dead. The chocolate, overloads the coyotes kidneys, and proves fatal. Ask your DWR about it.

Probably didn't want you to know about it, probably too simple, don't need a PHD to cure the problem.

Thanks

Brownie
 
My labradors loved chocolate. One lived to nearly 18 years old, and the other was past 13 when she died. I don't think chocolate hurt either one of them. But, I imagine coyotes might be different???
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-10 AT 00:33AM (MST)[p]CAelknuts, your labs were lucky. As brownie said, chocolate is not good for dogs, specifically Theobromine which is a chemical in cocoa beans. Not saying a little will kill them but if it is consumed regularly or a in large amounts, it will be fatal.
 
They ain't gettin my Chocolate!

Just my Lead!:D

God is Great!
Life is Good!
And People are Crazy!
I love not acting my age,
Damn I love my NASCAR race,
And Hell yes I love my Truck!
 
How about somebody find some chocolate that's sweetened with zylitol and test it out.
From wikipedia:
Xylitol is used around the world, mainly as a sweetener in chewing gums and pastilles.
Intake of very high doses of xylitol (greater than 500 ? 1000 mg/kg bwt) has also been implicated in liver failure in dogs, which can be fatal.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Cool Old Picture
IMG_4722.jpeg
IMG_0031.jpeg
Half-a-buck.JPG
91139B06-B7DC-444A-AD29-D1340DC26675.jpeg
2473810D-8A3A-4BBE-B873-A096CA3C04C5.jpeg
BC38B766-5917-4CAA-B8A8-F7BF1DC6E7D4.jpeg
2015.jpg
065.JPG
20210730_221549.jpg
AZ 2019.jpeg
Godzilla Resting
Back
Top Bottom