Studies that show predation is not just weak and sick

[elks96]

I know I have seen various predation studies on this topic. But I was speaking with a coworker today who is convinced that predation is far better than hunting for the animals as the predators take only the weak and the sick etc. That hunters only take the biggest and strongest. I pointed out that it is not true at all, that hunters take what ever they can get. That while some hunters target the largest biggest and most mature, there are way more who shoot what ever they can get. I pointed out that in some cases the majority of the harvest are females.

He was convinced that predators really only take out the weak and the sick making the herds stronger. However I recall seeing studies that show the predators avoid the sick in some situations. I also know that most predators are pure opportunity. They will kill which ever animals makes a mistake.

So lets see what you have... I am going to ask him about the so called surplus kills and see if he thinks that all 19 elk in that case were sick/weak. Or that the 2,500 elk killed each year in Yellowstone are the sick/weak.

I tried explaining that the mature males are typically way more vulnerable to predation post run in the winter than the females, but he did not believe it because "Science" said it was the weak.

 

[Serrano]

Anti-hunting "Science" reflects their agenda.

 

[BuzzH]

Depends on prey availability, the type of predator, individual predator, time of year, and lots of other variables.

As always, both sides of these types of discussions cherry pick and have pre-conceived notions with very little understanding of what they're talking about.

Surplus killing is very rare and takes a pretty specific set of circumstances. So rare, that the 19 elk mentioned by the OP, that happened, what, ten years ago?, is still referenced. Most surplus killing almost always involves deep snow where prey have very limited mobility.

There's little doubt, human hunters have more surplus killing events in a given year than all other predator combined. Read a bunch of articles every year about a group of "hunters" blazing away into herds of elk in particular. Once the shooting stops, there's a bunch of wounded elk, unclaimed elk, etc.

 

[BuzzH]

Anti-hunting "Science" reflects their agenda.

The Anti-Predator "science" reflects an agenda as well.

 

[Serrano]

Just because rutted out bucks and bulls, and fawns and calves are temporarily weak doesn't mean it's best for the herd to lose them.

 

[BuzzH]

Just because rutted out bucks and bulls, and fawns and calves are temporarily weak doesn't mean it's best for the herd to lose them.

Fawns and calves are always the most vulnerable, what choice do they have to not be "temporarily weak"?

They have no experience, no time to store fat for the winter, etc. How does a 6-10 month old fawn or calf make itself less vulnerable to predation, including human predation, a bad winter, etc?

Unless you supply calves/fawns with a pair of pajamas or long underware to help keep them warm during winter, storing what little fat reserves they MAY have, there's no way to avoid high mortality.

These herds evolved with high mortality in fawns/calves, just the way it works.

Best we can do is keep high quality habitat and protect our most productive adult does/.cows. Lots of fawns/calves can die each year if you produce high numbers of them.

 

[money]

Predators targeting the sick and the weak is absolutely a myth. They are opportunistic. They will stalk and kill whatever they can. Sometimes that is a sick or wounded animal, sometimes it is a completely healthy animal. But they absolutely do not have rational thoughts that drive them to chase sick or weak animals. They are killers that will kill whenever possible/necessary.

In Farmington, NM there a Museum that is a private collection of animals harvested by a rich oilfield tycoon. When you go tour the property they are certain to express that most of the animals were killed because they were problem animals or they were sick or wounded. But walking through it is very easy to see that the guy was a trophy hunter with a ton of money and he was certainly targeting trophy animals. But the sick and weak argument/spin makes anti hunters feel better about it all. The same is true of predators. They tell you that wolves are better than hunters because they naturally weed out the sick and weak and leave the healthy animals alone... clearly not true for wolves or any other predator.

Fact of the matter is nature is brutal to all animals. All prey is vulnerable to being preyed upon and all predators do their best to predate whenever/wherever possible. Many people just need to believe that nature is sweet and perfect and that is not the case. They've clearly never seen a Golden Eagle rip the guts out of a completely healthy doe Antelope and then ride that Antelope like a bull rider for half a mile until it finally falls down and gets eaten alive from the inside out. Yet hunters are considered the cruel ones....

 

[BuzzH]

Predators targeting the sick and the weak is absolutely a myth. They are opportunistic. They will stalk and kill whatever they can. Sometimes that is a sick or wounded animal, sometimes it is a completely healthy animal. But they absolutely do not have rational thoughts that drive them to chase sick or weak animals. They are killers that will kill whenever possible/necessary.

In Farmington, NM there a Museum that is a private collection of animals harvested by a rich oilfield tycoon. When you go tour the property they are certain to express that most of the animals were killed because they were problem animals or they were sick or wounded. But walking through it is very easy to see that the guy was a trophy hunter with a ton of money and he was certainly targeting trophy animals. But the sick and weak argument/spin makes anti hunters feel better about it all. The same is true of predators. They tell you that wolves are better than hunters because they naturally weed out the sick and weak and leave the healthy animals alone... clearly not true for wolves or any other predator.

Fact of the matter is nature is brutal to all animals. All prey is vulnerable to being preyed upon and all predators do their best to predate whenever/wherever possible. Many people just need to believe that nature is sweet and perfect and that is not the case. They've clearly never seen a Golden Eagle rip the guts out of a completely healthy doe Antelope and then ride that Antelope like a bull rider for half a mile until it finally falls down and gets eaten alive from the inside out. Yet hunters are considered the cruel ones....

Meh, again over-simplifying how predators work.

Wolves absolutely look for vulnerability in their prey and they do pick on anything that shows a weakness. Its not by chance that they focus on the weakest. Think about trying to kill an elk with your teeth, its a high risk endeavor for wolves to make kills. Higher risk if they were to go after just any old elk in the herd. Wolves get the ever-loving crap kicked out of them making kills, one big reason why they rarely live past 3. Punctured lungs, busted legs, broken jaws, its over for them.

Lions, not so much, opportunistic and much more efficient predator. Not nearly as much risk involved for them, I equate them to human meat hunters. First good opportunity they get, they kill them...old, young, buck, doe, cow, calf...whatever.

Also, the eagles I've personally witnessed killing pronghorn don't rip their guts out, they land on their backs and a pick a hole through to their lungs.

Like this one I saw a few years ago, you can see the hole in the back and blood on the pronghorns side. I spooked the eagle off the pronghorns back, it came back and finished it off shortly after I took the picture.

Finally, I've seen plenty of poor killing efficiency from human hunters. Just last week watched a guy shooting over 500 yards, off a fence post, at 7 bulls, hit one and lost it. Also seen jaws shot off, broken legs, intestines hanging out, arrows/broadheads in lost animals, and about everything else. Many aren't as efficient as the average lion, eagle, or wolf, fact.

 

[money]

Meh, again over-simplifying how predators work.

Wolves absolutely look for vulnerability in their prey and they do pick on anything that shows a weakness. Its not by chance that they focus on the weakest. Think about trying to kill an elk with your teeth, its a high risk endeavor for wolves to make kills. Higher risk if they were to go after just any old elk in the herd. Wolves get the ever-loving crap kicked out of them making kills, one big reason why they rarely live past 3. Punctured lungs, busted legs, broken jaws, its over for them.

Lions, not so much, opportunistic and much more efficient predator. Not nearly as much risk involved for them, I equate them to human meat hunters. First good opportunity they get, they kill them...old, young, buck, doe, cow, calf...whatever.

Also, the eagles I've personally witnessed killing pronghorn don't rip their guts out, they land on their backs and a pick a hole through to their lungs.

Like this one I saw a few years ago, you can see the hole in the back and blood on the pronghorns side. I spooked the eagle off the pronghorns back, it came back and finished it off shortly after I took the picture.

View attachment 128755

Finally, I've seen plenty of poor killing efficiency from human hunters. Just last week watched a guy shooting over 500 yards, off a fence post, at 7 bulls, hit one and lost it. Also seen jaws shot off, broken legs, intestines hanging out, arrows/broadheads in lost animals, and about everything else. Many aren't as efficient as the average lion, eagle, or wolf, fact.

I definitely think they'll take sick or weak prey when it is available. I just don't think they rationally have the ability to decide. I think they are hungry and a sick or weak one might single itself out.

Some humans are definitely worse than predators I agree with you.

My point mainly is that predators kill because they have to and they don't care what they kill for the most part. Sick, weak, healthy, male, female... they just want to eat and tree huggers telling themselves that animals only kill sick or weak animals is a lie. That is all i was saying.

 

[JPickett]

classic disney "science"

 

[elks96]

Interesting number. I saw one report state that wolves alone kill over 11,000 elk a year in the GYSE. Wonder what percent of the total kill is the sick and the weak?

I think we can all agree that all predators even wolves are opportunist. But I also think that the opportunity for the strongest and most mature animals is also there... I know from my undergraduate classes that a study on human hunting vs predators they took the lower jaws from the animals harvested by open hunting and also a similar number of jaws from animals killed by predators and the data showed the age dispersion was basically the same. The percent young middle age and older deer were nearly identical in the comparison of the predation and hunting by man.

I would not be surprised if there is data that shows an aversion to killing and eating sick animals by some predators in some settings.

 

[BuzzH]

Interesting number. I saw one report state that wolves alone kill over 11,000 elk a year in the GYSE. Wonder what percent of the total kill is the sick and the weak?

Probably shouldn't get your "data" from Toby Bridges.

 

[JPickett]

no seriously. the pushing of "only pray on sick and week" is a narrative that can be tracked back to being pushed by disney films in the early 50's amidst a change in the perception of the war on predators. read a book earlier this year called "coyote America" and that author goes in to that a bit.

really good book, amazing compilation of historical record and government policies on coyotes going back to and before the first white man to document the prairie wolf.

and the author is definitely an anti hunting pretentious liberal so im not just parroting right wing extremism. good read for those of you that find that stuff interesting.

 

[ralphie]

I’ve seen surplus killing of livestock multiple times. It certainly isn’t every time a predator kills livestock, but I wouldn’t call it rare.

Compared to wildlife livestock probably does count as weak and easy. So there is that component.

 

[BuzzH]

I’ve seen surplus killing of livestock multiple times. It certainly isn’t every time a predator kills livestock, but I wouldn’t call it rare.

Compared to wildlife livestock probably does count as weak and easy. So there is that component.

In the case of domestic sheep, they're so dumb they pile up and kill each other. The predator grabs one or two, the rest kill each other.

Yeah, not the brightest animals on the planet.

 

[ralphie]

In the case of domestic sheep, they're so dumb they pile up and kill each other. The predator grabs one or two, the rest kill each other.

Yeah, not the brightest animals on the planet.

Perhaps this happens at times, but when they are strung out all over a fairly large area it is obvious this is not the case. In addition it is pretty easy to differentiate between animals killed by suffocating or blunt trauma compared to puncture and ripping wounds from teeth and claws.

 

[BuzzH]

Perhaps this happens at times, but when they are strung out all over a fairly large area it is obvious this is not the case. In addition it is pretty easy to differentiate between animals killed by suffocating or blunt trauma compared to puncture and ripping wounds from teeth and claws.

Wolves kill more than 100 sheep near Boise

According to KMVT sister station KBOI, the pair of wolves ran the pack of sheep into a steep gully, where they piled up

www.kmvt.com

The article title should have said, "100 sheep kill each other".

 

[BuzzH]

Another:

Two Wolves Kill 176 Sheep in One Night Near Idaho Falls

If you have any doubts about the gray wolf's hunting ability, or its impact on livestock, you should talk to the sheepherders in Idaho where two wolves recently zeroed in on a flock of 2,400 sheep near Idaho Falls.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[ralphie]

 

[BuzzH]

View attachment 128777

Confirmed wolves?

Seen Fido do more damage.

 

[ralphie]

Confirmed bear.
Agreed dogs can be hard on them too though. But I’ve seen surplus killing from bear, wolves, lion, and coyotes.

 

[BuzzH]

Confirmed bear.
Agreed dogs can be hard on them too though. But I’ve seen surplus killing from bear, wolves, lion, and coyotes.

The wild sheep that live in the area would thank the bears, wolves, lions, and coyotes...I would too.

 

[JPickett]

you guys all saw the video of the grizzly dragging a 6x6 across the yellowstone right? looked like a pretty healthy bull

 

[slamdunk]

I know I have seen various predation studies on this topic. But I was speaking with a coworker today who is convinced that predation is far better than hunting for the animals as the predators take only the weak and the sick etc. That hunters only take the biggest and strongest. I pointed out that it is not true at all, that hunters take what ever they can get. That while some hunters target the largest biggest and most mature, there are way more who shoot what ever they can get. I pointed out that in some cases the majority of the harvest are females.

He was convinced that predators really only take out the weak and the sick making the herds stronger. However I recall seeing studies that show the predators avoid the sick in some situations. I also know that most predators are pure opportunity. They will kill which ever animals makes a mistake.

So lets see what you have... I am going to ask him about the so called surplus kills and see if he thinks that all 19 elk in that case were sick/weak. Or that the 2,500 elk killed each year in Yellowstone are the sick/weak.

I tried explaining that the mature males are typically way more vulnerable to predation post run in the winter than the females, but he did not believe it because "Science" said it was the weak.

Let me guess......he's a houndsman and thinks cats will control CWD if we let them flourish like so many Utah cat lovers are trying hard to say.

 

[slamdunk]

you guys all saw the video of the grizzly dragging a 6x6 across the yellowstone right? looked like a pretty healthy bull

Yup.....that video was pretty incredible.

 

[johnnyutah]

I know I have seen various predation studies on this topic. But I was speaking with a coworker today who is convinced that predation is far better than hunting for the animals as the predators take only the weak and the sick etc. That hunters only take the biggest and strongest. I pointed out that it is not true at all, that hunters take what ever they can get. That while some hunters target the largest biggest and most mature, there are way more who shoot what ever they can get. I pointed out that in some cases the majority of the harvest are females.

He was convinced that predators really only take out the weak and the sick making the herds stronger. However I recall seeing studies that show the predators avoid the sick in some situations. I also know that most predators are pure opportunity. They will kill which ever animals makes a mistake.

So lets see what you have... I am going to ask him about the so called surplus kills and see if he thinks that all 19 elk in that case were sick/weak. Or that the 2,500 elk killed each year in Yellowstone are the sick/weak.

I tried explaining that the mature males are typically way more vulnerable to predation post run in the winter than the females, but he did not believe it because "Science" said it was the weak.

The "weak" includes the fawns and calves.

There is merit to both points-of view in different situations.

Have your friend consider the population of moose in Yellowstone. It is less than 100, far less than carrying capacity and far less than historical numbers before wolves. It probably will not increase without some human intervention.

How is the moose population going to achieve a healthy sustainable level when there are hundreds of wolves against fewer than 50 moose calves per year?

In your friend's behalf, we arguably have weakened the gene pool of deer by obsessively targeting the biggest and putting a hefty price on their head.

 

[johnnyutah]

Also, I thought the "sick and weak" argument died long ago. That was a major sales point when advocating for the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone.

Who knew 75% of the elk herd was sick and weak? That's how much the population decreased in a few years. Wolf advocates have not addressed that at all. Instead they "celebrate" how much more grass is in the park now and how helpful that is to the rivers and the frogs......

 

[BuzzH]

Also, I thought the "sick and weak" argument died long ago. That was a major sales point when advocating for the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone.

Who knew 75% of the elk herd was sick and weak? That's how much the population decreased in a few years. Wolf advocates have not addressed that at all. Instead they "celebrate" how much more grass is in the park now and how helpful that is to the rivers and the frogs......

Uh, I don't buy the 75% reduction nonsense from wolves, and 22k elk in the Northern Herd was not healthy or sustainable.

The MTFWP was issuing a few thousand late cow tags even after wolves were reintroduced...people tend to have biased and selective memories.

 

[elks96]

In the case of domestic sheep, they're so dumb they pile up and kill each other. The predator grabs one or two, the rest kill each other.

Yeah, not the brightest animals on the planet.

Not always the case. We had lions kill 13 sheep in one night when I was kid. It were 2 juveniles and they were killed over a 300 yard stretch of creek bottom behind the house.

Some times what you describe happen, but other times it does not.

 

[elks96]

Let me guess......he's a houndsman and thinks cats will control CWD if we let them flourish like so many Utah cat lovers are trying hard to say.

Dedicated predator hunter who sees trapping, helicopters, etc. as an enemy to his hobby. So kind of like a houndsman. Good guy just a one sided. He also claims that all the ranchers are crooked and they are always lying about how many animals predators take etc.

I found an interesting study out of California to share with him. Wolf dropping data showed that 86% of the samples they collected contained beef cattle DNA. And every one that had cattle DNA had at least one unique cattle DNA sample. Meaning that they had multiple different cattle DNA sample not just one or 2. I just saw the project and really need to look more into that study.

 

[hossblur]

Call me simple, but the studies showing cats kill about ,30 deer a year would mean there's a ton of sick and weak deer yearly?

There's videos all over YouTube of wolves and bears running down bull elk and cows.

Cats catching deer.

 

[huntin50]

I don't think there are many studies on predator harassment on hard winters, like last year. Deer and elk were tipping over and Lions and coyotes were harassing them all winter in deep snow. Much of this had to contribute to winter mortality. Not enough nutrition and fat reserves to survive. So one lion may kill one deer a week with its jaws, but how many eventually die from harassment?

 

[johnnyutah]

Uh, I don't buy the 75% reduction nonsense from wolves, and 22k elk in the Northern Herd was not healthy or sustainable.

The MTFWP was issuing a few thousand late cow tags even after wolves were reintroduced...people tend to have biased and selective memories.

Uh, and I don't buy wolves only kill the old and weak. That line was pitched in 1995 and turned to be yet another load of crap pitched by poker faced enviros who also have selective memory and will never admit that beetle kill timber can mitigated with logging, never consider that CO from wildfires also counts, never realize electric cars are really fueled by coal, and never ever admit wolves kill a lot of moose and elk calves as well as healthy adults.

 

[BuzzH]

Not always the case. We had lions kill 13 sheep in one night when I was kid. It were 2 juveniles and they were killed over a 300 yard stretch of creek bottom behind the house.

Some times what you describe happen, but other times it does not.

Big difference between 13 and 100+.

 

[BuzzH]

Uh, and I don't buy wolves only kill the old and weak. That line was pitched in 1995 and turned to be yet another load of crap pitched by poker faced enviros who also have selective memory and will never admit that beetle kill timber can mitigated with logging, never consider that CO from wildfires also counts, never realize electric cars are really fueled by coal, and never ever admit wolves kill a lot of moose and elk calves as well as healthy adults.

I think your bias is showing and nobody said wolves only kill sick and weak. Wolves look for the most vulnerable/vulnerabilities, they aren't ambush killers like lions.


In the Bitterroot AND Idaho calf mortality studies, lions and bear killed more elk calves than wolves. Research that has been systematically ignored, which you have done here.

Also, beetle kill can not be mitigated by logging if the housing market is in the crapper (think 2008) and there is no demand. Combine that with NAFTA and the Canadian Softwood markets and importing veneer/saw logs made logging during the height of MPB outbreaks uneconomical. Tough to make a living logging trees you cant sell, to a mill that cant afford to process them, who in turn, can't sell to people who aren't building homes due to a major stock market crash. Even worse when you're competing in a North American Market and Southern tree plantations where growing and harvesting trees is way cheaper, with rotation ages that allow you to time markets, outlast recessions, etc.

Not the case in the IW, and MPB killed trees have a short shelf like. They don't wait for improved markets.

 

[elkassassin]

I Don't Think We Needed A Study For This!

GEEZUS!

 

[Togwotee]

If predators only took the sick and weak they'd starve pretty fast. anyone that's spent any time around wildlife knows this.

 

[johnnyutah]

I think your bias is showing and nobody said wolves only kill sick and weak. Wolves look for the most vulnerable/vulnerabilities, they aren't ambush killers like lions.


In the Bitterroot AND Idaho calf mortality studies, lions and bear killed more elk calves than wolves. Research that has been systematically ignored, which you have done here.

Also, beetle kill can not be mitigated by logging if the housing market is in the crapper (think 2008) and there is no demand. Combine that with NAFTA and the Canadian Softwood markets and importing veneer/saw logs made logging during the height of MPB outbreaks uneconomical. Tough to make a living logging trees you cant sell, to a mill that cant afford to process them, who in turn, can't sell to people who aren't building homes due to a major stock market crash. Even worse when you're competing in a North American Market and Southern tree plantations where growing and harvesting trees is way cheaper, with rotation ages that allow you to time markets, outlast recessions, etc.

Not the case in the IW, and MPB killed trees have a short shelf like. They don't wait for improved markets.

Yes I'm biased, doesn't mean I don't have a point worth considering. Enviros have pitched a lot of baseless crap ideas that have needlessly caused a lot of problems for a lot of people and the environment. These should be called out along with their credibility.

Somebody did say wolves only kill sick and weak (read the first post) and some of your comments seem to indicate you agree with it. And then a verbose contention is made of how there was a decrease in demand for timber in 2008. (Never mind that was a decade after the beetles decimated swaths of merchantable timber and the Forest Service couldn't get the permits out to the timber companies for salvage cuts because of frivolous environmental lawsuits.)

 

[BuzzH]

Yes I'm biased, doesn't mean I don't have a point worth considering. Enviros have pitched a lot of baseless crap ideas that have needlessly caused a lot of problems for a lot of people and the environment. These should be called out along with their credibility.

Somebody did say wolves only kill sick and weak (read the first post) and some of your comments seem to indicate you agree with it. And then a verbose contention is made of how there was a decrease in demand for timber in 2008. (Never mind that was a decade after the beetles decimated swaths of merchantable timber and the Forest Service couldn't get the permits out to the timber companies for salvage cuts because of frivolous environmental lawsuits.)

I think we're largely on the same page. Pitching baseless crap is a favorite past time of the uninformed, not limited to either side of an issue.

My comments pointed to facts, like wolves look for the most vulnerable. Wolves and lions are totally different predators in regard to how they hunt. The MTFWP continued to hammer on elk around Yellowstone for several years after wolves were reintroduced. The calf mortality studies that clearly show lions and bears kill more calves than wolves.

You know, facts. I also stated several times that nobody believes wolves only kill the weak and sick.

Finally, you're wrong about the MPB outbreaks in the Interior West. They didn't happen on any sizeable scale until 2004-2008. The worst year I remember is 2005 in the MedBow and most of Colorado.

The late 90's had significant moisture and in particular cold temperatures that limited MPB.

 

[johnnyutah]

I can say with confidence that the spruce on the Dixie, Cache, and Caribou National Forests were hit hard in the 90's with spruce beetles. I really don't value an assessment that says otherwise, even with a clever explanation about facts and that it was wet and cold. I saw the forest decay for myself.

Additionally, I was a USU forestry student in the 90's, I worked seasonal wildland jobs, heard the frustration of the public land managers regarding postage stamp appeals to sanitation cuts while we all watched thousands of acres of old spruce trees died. I also witnessed the saw mills diminish as dying timber increased at an alarming rate. This isn't a 2nd hand experience for me that I read in an article. It was a major influence in a change of career path.

Even so, it wasn't the end of the world like I thought it would be.

This has largely been an unproductive conversation that is now a tangent from the original post and I now regret engaging in it. My point-of-view has been flippantly dismissed and I've wasted my time.

You can have the last word.

I'm out.

 

[BuzzH]

I can say with confidence that the spruce on the Dixie, Cache, and Caribou National Forests were hit hard in the 90's with spruce beetles. I really don't value an assessment that says otherwise, even with a clever explanation about facts and that it was wet and cold. I saw the forest decay for myself.

Additionally, I was a USU forestry student in the 90's, I worked seasonal wildland jobs, heard the frustration of the public land managers regarding postage stamp appeals to sanitation cuts while we all watched thousands of acres of old spruce trees died. I also witnessed the saw mills diminish as dying timber increased at an alarming rate. This isn't a 2nd hand experience for me that I read in an article. It was a major influence in a change of career path.

Even so, it wasn't the end of the world like I thought it would be.

This has largely been an unproductive conversation that is now a tangent from the original post and I now regret engaging in it. My point-of-view has been flippantly dismissed and I've wasted my time.

You can have the last word.

I'm out.

I didn't read articles, you aren't the only person with a Forestry degree either. I was about 15 years into stand exams, risk rating MPB, root disease, spruce bud worm, forest inventory, yada yada. Still doing it now about to finish up year 37. Another 5 and someone else can punch in 42 years working in the woods.

Also fair to note my family worked in the wood products industry in Western Montana since the 1960's. That makes a person pretty aware of softwood markets, housing starts, you know, things that impact the industry.

It wasn't enviro's that crippled the timber industry in the IW, it was accelerated cutting, mill technology, fuel prices, NAFTA, recessions, and good old Corporate America doing what they do best.

Lived it...my whole life.

 

[JPickett]

i saw a coyote with a deer leg in its mouth one time deer hunting. i killed it. basically makes me a hero. you guys are welcome

 

[BuzzH]

i saw a coyote with a deer leg in its mouth one time deer hunting. i killed it. basically makes me a hero. you guys are welcome

Probably a scrap from a long range shooter that lost the deer from shooting it in the guts.

 

[JPickett]

Probably a scrap from a long range shooter that lost the deer from shooting it in the guts.

but still, pretty heroic on my part

 

[BuzzH]

but still, pretty heroic on my part

Thanks for your service.

 

[Tristate]

I don't know squat about wolves. Never even seen one in the wild. Saw a track in Alaska one time.

Coyotes kill deer. Fawns and full grown ones. They don't have to be injured or sick. Bobcats do it also. Doesn't have to be injured or sick either. Lions and bobcats will kill just for the fun of it. Doesn't have to be hungry. They really like killing domesticated stock. Chickens and sheep get it the worst. Racoons can get chicken drunk and whack a whole bunch of chickens if its a confined space. All three Lion, coyote, and bobcat can kill a full grown deer by themselves. Doesn't have to be a pack working together. I don't need any studies. I've seen it several times with my own eyes.

I think coyotes would kill for fun more often if they were very successful at being a predator but they aren't.

 

[Tristate]

I left out skunks. They'll get chicken drunk too in a confined space.

 

[elkassassin]

You Gonna Need A Brownie Badge For That?

i saw a coyote with a deer leg in its mouth one time deer hunting. i killed it. basically makes me a hero. you guys are welcome

 

[JPickett]

You Gonna Need A Brownie Badge For That?

Just thank me for my service and pay for my Starbucks if you see me ordering one