$20.00 for coyotes in Sask

[6.5 shooter]

Saskatawan is offering $20.00 per coyote...wonder.if they will take some Alberta ones...might pay for the gas to go get some :)

[Rockymtnx]

Where did you hear this?

[Ormachek]

http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=c533b51a-71ad-4e88-a940-370a0670e9d0

right there!

[Rockymtnx]

Sounds like a excellent idea to me!

[Bushmaster]

I think that the declaration form is to weed out any non-resident coyotes.....:D

[rugatika]

maximum amt that can be claimed by an individual is $50,000. Thats a lot of coyotes!! (2500 yotes)

[froggy]

anyone up for a coyote hunt lol how much are they going for here in alberta

[mtylerb]

From one of their pages (http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/coyote-control):

2. Who is eligible for a grant?
Any resident of Saskatchewan that is legally able to hunt is eligible for this grant. There is a cap of $50,000 for any individual under the program.

[Deer Hunter]

I can hear the saskatchewan boys warming up their skidoo's already:lol:

[beansgunsghandi]

People have been shooting, poisoning and trapping coyotes for a very long time obviously.

The effect of all this? Not much. Coyotes fit a niche, and they're going to stay there unless all of 'em are killed. As that's not likely to happen, killing coyotes is about as useful as p@ssing into the wind. Some people get a thrill out of killing something; OK, but don't call it useful, moral or even rational, it's just not. I hunt, but I cringe every time I see a photo on here of someone proudly holding up a dead coyote (or wolf, but for different reasons).

And it's a waste of tax-payer money, pure and simple. Plus coyotes eat a lot of gophers, mice, etc. etc., all "vermin" that people try to also kill...

Sorry to be blunt, but I've held my tongue on this a few times, I just can't on this one. Killing coyotes is bad science and bad for our public image.

[Jeromeo]

People have been shooting, poisoning and trapping coyotes for a very long time obviously.

The effect of all this? Not much. Coyotes fit a niche, and they're going to stay there unless all of 'em are killed. As that's not likely to happen, killing coyotes is about as useful as p@ssing into the wind. Some people get a thrill out of killing something; OK, but don't call it useful, moral or even rational, it's just not. I hunt, but I cringe every time I see a photo on here of someone proudly holding up a dead coyote (or wolf, but for different reasons).

And it's a waste of tax-payer money, pure and simple. Plus coyotes eat a lot of gophers, mice, etc. etc., all "vermin" that people try to also kill...

Sorry to be blunt, but I've held my tongue on this a few times, I just can't on this one. Killing coyotes is bad science and bad for our public image.

I LOVE KILLING COYOTES!!! I think I enjoy it more than hunting deer. Think what you will. I won't argue with you since you seem to be an expert on the subject.
As for Saskatchewan paying to shoot these buggers who cares, I'd shoot them for free.

[mtylerb]

... And it's a waste of tax-payer money, pure and simple. Plus coyotes eat a lot of gophers, mice, etc. etc., all "vermin" that people try to also kill...

This is about the only part of your post I agree with.

If we're killing them and have no hope of removing them completely, then to stop killing them would mean being over run with coyotes. Having the government pay for their paws is a waste of tax payer money, yes, but we are hardly hurting their population numbers. If we're not hurting their population numbers, then they're still there to do their jobs (removing mice, etc).

If you don't want to see dead coyotes, then don't open the threads talking about dead/hunting coyotes.

PS
Cool! I used they're, their, and there in the same sentence! :tongue2:

[IR_mike]

People have been shooting, poisoning and trapping coyotes for a very long time obviously.

Some people get a thrill out of killing something; OK, but don't call it useful, moral or even rational, it's just not. I hunt, but I cringe every time I see a photo on here of someone proudly holding up a dead coyote (or wolf, but for different reasons).

And it's a waste of tax-payer money, pure and simple. Plus coyotes eat a lot of gophers, mice, etc. etc., all "vermin" that people try to also kill...

Sorry to be blunt, but I've held my tongue on this a few times, I just can't on this one. Killing coyotes is bad science and bad for our public image.


On the Sask government website it says the bounty is in response to livestock predation.... does that qualify as rational?

As far as public image the majority of people (urban) that veiw something such as this negativly might think different after the family pet goes missing or is found half eaten.

[beansgunsghandi]

Maybe I'm too soft, but if killing coyotes doesn't have any long-term impact on their numbers then why kill 'em? I'm not an "expert," but I do come from a ranching background, and I read up on animals for the same reasons I hunt, it's darn interesting. I just don't think killing something to kill it is real defensible.

"Livestock predation" has been the reason to kill coyotes for generations. The government has offered far bigger bounties in real dollars than the current $20, but as far as I can tell all that money has had no effect. The ranger and number of coyotes in most places I know is bigger. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is normally called crazy...

I know a guy who put a few Texas Longhorns into the field, said that eliminated predation. That's the type of solution that is different and will work.

[mtylerb]

Maybe I'm too soft, but if killing coyotes doesn't have any long-term impact on their numbers then why kill 'em? I'm not an "expert," but I do come from a ranching background, and I read up on animals for the same reasons I hunt, it's darn interesting. I just don't think killing something to kill it is real defensible.

If you read the website for it, you'll notice that the government is only requiring and accepting the paws of the animal for proof (they will not take the whole animal, just paws). The reason they're taking the paws and not the tails is so that the pelt stays mostly intact and doesn't lose value. The hunter could then turn around and sell the pelt.

Some people will kill the coyotes just for the sake of killing them, albeit with permission from a farmer it could also be for protection of a herd. They're not harming the population or putting them in jeopardy of becoming extinct, so that's their call. Others will kill them for their pelts and the $20 will just be a bonus.

There may not be any long term effect on population, but in the short term it might be enough to help a few farmers with a predation problem. Is that so wrong? I've heard numerous farmers having money problems. This is a pretty cheap solution, probably cheaper than the longhorns you were talking about. I may be wrong, I've never been a farmer. If I could invite someone in to take care of a coyote problem and not pay them anything because they're enjoying what they're doing and they're making money on the side from selling the pelts, seems like a win-win to me. The extra money from the government shouldn't be necessary, but maybe the hunters need a bit of a push?

[Mhunter51]

Anyone who wants to go out hunting coyotes should be very proud of the coyote just as someone is proud of the doe whitetail or for that matter any game animal taken ethically. To say there is NO benifit to killing a coyote is just absurd, particularily if one comes from a ranch background. There is no better way to take care of problem coyotes than to ' take care' of them. A lot of the coyote problems come from acreage owners around Saskatoon who have been loosing lambs and sheep. The coyotes have been coming into the yards even in daylight to take sheep. What should these people do if they choose to raise a few sheep, have them move to the city--I think not. I think a bounty is a good idea since the furs are not worth much no one is hunting them as much anymore. To go out hunting and calling predators is a very enjoyable pastime when a lot of the other seaseons are closed and should be something a person has every right to be proud of.

[Bushmaster]

Beans, I don't think the purpose of the bounty is to annihilate the coyote but just to reduce the population. And I don't think that is being done by hunters or any other means, right now. There are more coyotes around here than ever before and their attitude/actions because of this are very evident. Back in the day, when I hunted coyotes every weekend you hardly ever saw one and if you did, he was running full tilt. About a year ago I shot one of the bottom front step...he was after one of my cats. In my travels, I see coyotes everyday, allday, moving about non-chalantly. They are overpopulated and react by getting closer to humans to obtain an easy meal.

[mediatrigg]

Is anyone using coyote pelts anymore?

I'd like to learn how to process the pelt for gloves or a blanket.

On another note, is anyone here eating coyote these days? I hear a lot of bad things about eating them.

[spirit4u]

Yes $20 dollars is the cheap way around if they can knock back the amount the government has to pay out in cattle/sheep compensation payments for predator losses. Not sure what the payout fees are? not enough in most ranchers eyes, but if 10 cows are saved at the cost of $400 buck apeice thats $4000. If ten coyotes were responsible and taken down that only cost the government $200 Just my opinion of the programs intent.

[bobbypetrolia]

I just got off the phone with my father, who is a Reeve in one of the RM's in Saskatchewan. He told me the bounty is not intended to eradicate the coyote population, rather to give incentive to try to possibly get the population under control. The $20 is a bounty put in place by the government of Sask and select municipalities have already vowed to double that number when you bring 4 coyote paws into your local RM office.
As mentioned by another poster, they chose to use the paws so that they could still identify it as a coyote without affecting the value of the pelt. When submitted, the paws will be painted hunter-orange and disposed of; to deter theft of submitted paws and/or resubmission.

[huntinstuff]

Is anyone using coyote pelts anymore?

I'd like to learn how to process the pelt for gloves or a blanket.

On another note, is anyone here eating coyote these days? I hear a lot of bad things about eating them.

Coyote tastes a lot like eagle........

[sourdough doug]

Coyote tastes a lot like eagle........

Keeping in mind , of course, that one is not suppose to eat eagle any more, according to some gov't food agency or some other gov't whatchamacallit..:lol:

[predatorzedge]

People have been shooting, poisoning and trapping coyotes for a very long time obviously.

The effect of all this? Not much. Coyotes fit a niche, and they're going to stay there unless all of 'em are killed. As that's not likely to happen, killing coyotes is about as useful as p@ssing into the wind. Some people get a thrill out of killing something; OK, but don't call it useful, moral or even rational, it's just not. I hunt, but I cringe every time I see a photo on here of someone proudly holding up a dead coyote (or wolf, but for different reasons).

And it's a waste of tax-payer money, pure and simple. Plus coyotes eat a lot of gophers, mice, etc. etc., all "vermin" that people try to also kill...

Sorry to be blunt, but I've held my tongue on this a few times, I just can't on this one. Killing coyotes is bad science and bad for our public image.

No offence I disagree with your thinkin on hunting coyotes. Where I live Until the last few years people have said coyotes attack livestock, I didnt believe I do now after seeing it. I think you ought to tell the little girl down east they are good cause right now she is recovering after being attacked at a playground. Coyotes are to widely spread in dense populations causing lack of food and deseases. I hunt them everyday I can and out of 10 coyotes 6 are mangey, not a good sight to look at with no tails, no hair on the bellies they gonna freeze to death in winter or worse move into farm yards or the citys where the pickins are easy. Tell us now its a waste of taxpayers money or phone the little kids family that it happens to next, hopefully it dont but there is just way to many. So killin coyotes is bad science and public image, I think you need to re-evaluate your way of thinkin an dont judge people for what they do, an let me guess where ya bought your last steak the grocery store? Wow public image there ya paid someone else to kill it good for you.

[kayaker]

Sorry to be blunt, but I've held my tongue on this a few times, I just can't on this one. Killing coyotes is bad science and bad for our public image.

+1

..and unless you kill enough you only create a more virile and fecund population - essentially making it worse.

[Sundancefisher]

Maybe I'm too soft, but if killing coyotes doesn't have any long-term impact on their numbers then why kill 'em? I'm not an "expert," but I do come from a ranching background, and I read up on animals for the same reasons I hunt, it's darn interesting. I just don't think killing something to kill it is real defensible.

"Livestock predation" has been the reason to kill coyotes for generations. The government has offered far bigger bounties in real dollars than the current $20, but as far as I can tell all that money has had no effect. The ranger and number of coyotes in most places I know is bigger. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is normally called crazy...

I know a guy who put a few Texas Longhorns into the field, said that eliminated predation. That's the type of solution that is different and will work.

Coyotes DO NOT fill a niche...the niche is already filled by others and coyotes are just expanding into the range.

In a normal predator prey cycle...once upon a time wolves would of controlled coyotes in Saskatchewan and in fact historically there were few coyotes to be found. Unfortunately the only predator for coyotes is gone. Therefore coyote populations are on a tear and increasing in numbers and expanding their range yearly. They in turn impact not only people (livestock damage, predation on pets, increasing violence towards people) but also native animals and birds such as all small mammals including mink, rabbits, foxes, etc. and birds such as grouse, pheasant etc. In the absense of a natural predator...I can agree biologically speaking that there is a point in having humans control their population. You can never get rid of all of them...probably not even totally curtail their population growth without significant hunting pressure. This program could actually tip the balance and dramatically increase the hunting pressure and therefore have a positve effect of reducing their numbers.

In turn you are benefiting mink, lynx, bobcat, fishers, martens, wolverine, hawks, owls and all the indemic predator species that are losing out to the very successful coyote range expansion.

This is not unlike controlling perch in a lake...:evilgrin:

[Walleyes]

Sundance,, very good post. Unfortunately we have to remember that some people's world is to small to accept what you have to say ,,they live life with blinders on..

[Sundancefisher]

Sundance,, very good post. Unfortunately we have to remember that some people's world is to small to accept what you have to say ,,they live life with blinders on..

;)

I could not resist this one. While not a hunter myself...purely from a management perspective and protection of other cute and cuddly animals and birds...it does make sense. While I primarily worked on fish related projects I also worked on studies involving moose, bighorn, caribou, elk. Never did get to work with bears, wolves, cougars or coyotes though. I was stalked by a cougar once on the dogpound while surveying brookie redds.

Coyotes scare me the most as they can pack up...are virtually ignored by city managers as anything but a nusaince and can easily kill any of my young children down in Fish Creek Park. People for the most part have blinders...they remind them of a german sheppard than a natural predator (that can have rabies).

[beansgunsghandi]

I've been off the net for a few days 'cause I was hunting (success for once!), so I haven't been able to respond to Sundancer's comments, which are thoughtful and I bet we'd agree on more than we disagree. But maybe not this one.

Coyotes are indeed filling a niche, or they wouldn't be there. To argue otherwise is just arguing against the obvious--Coyote are there, and succeeding, so they are filling a niche... That part of the wild system may not be the part we as humans would like to see working as it is, but there ya go.

To argue that coyotes are dangerous against humans is true--very rarely someone actually does get attacked by Coyotes (fatality with the singer, sorry to hear that). But your odds of having a tree fall on you in the woods are much, much higher than getting killed by a coyote (seriously). Should we log the woods to remove this tremendous danger? I'm far more worried about the rivers and streams when my kid is playing outside in the woods than I am about coyotes. Bears in some places too, and it could be argued they are more of a danger to humans than coyotes. But again, we don't go shooting all the bears, just the ones that get too familiar. I never argued against shooting a coyote in your back yard (although I'd be careful with that), this isn't a "Never shoot a coyote" vs. "shoot all" coyote discussion.

If wolves hunt the small furry creatures then I'm sure Coyotes do too, and vice versa. I don't think wolves or coyotes are inherently "better" in a system. Wolves, coyotes, different practices and prey in some ways but if the wolves leave a vacant niche for a canine predator/scavenger then coyotes will fill it out. Interestingly, maybe coyotes will do this in a way some people like less than wolves--funny how that worked out then isn't it? Kinda like the old poison a gopher trick, which then poisons the hawks when they eat the gophers, which means more gophers 'cause fewer hawk kills... The small furry critters have done just fine for a long time when humans don't mess with 'em too much, I imagine they will again. But maybe some people want more small furry critters than medium-sized four-legged ones...

This leaves us back at the start of all this: killing coyotes for hundreds of years has shown that either you kill 'em all or don't bother, it doesn't do anything long-term. There are better ways to deal with coyote predation if it's a real problem. Spending money to kill coyotes reminds me of the guy who buys cheap tools over and over again. Long-term it's better to do something that works, and that makes sense. Maybe that's putting different types of stock in with each other; maybe that's better control of offal; lots of solutions that do work, but killing coyotes as policy just doesn't. Plus it just irritates me to see the government wasting money on something that doesn't work.

I'll definitely read more posts, but I'm going out again and likely won't reply for some time. Still have a tag to fill. Best of luck to everyone!

[Sundancefisher]

I've been off the net for a few days 'cause I was hunting (success for once!), so I haven't been able to respond to Sundancer's comments, which are thoughtful and I bet we'd agree on more than we disagree. But maybe not this one.

Coyotes are indeed filling a niche, or they wouldn't be there. To argue otherwise is just arguing against the obvious--Coyote are there, and succeeding, so they are filling a niche... That part of the wild system may not be the part we as humans would like to see working as it is, but there ya go. Actually still as stated...coyotes have only recently moved in to these areas as a result of the loss of the wolves. Their niche has been occupied by other animals such as foxes etc. of which all of these animals are killed off by the coyotes. If this was a case of the coyotes always being here and part of the circle of life then I would agree with you. For most native species...coyotes are introduced as a result of human influences and as such are only part of the circle of death. We can agree to disagree but facts are coyotes were never intended to part of the ecosystem in the way they dominate now.

To argue that coyotes are dangerous against humans is true--very rarely someone actually does get attacked by Coyotes (fatality with the singer, sorry to hear that). But your odds of having a tree fall on you in the woods are much, much higher than getting killed by a coyote (seriously). Should we log the woods to remove this tremendous danger? I'm far more worried about the rivers and streams when my kid is playing outside in the woods than I am about coyotes. Bears in some places too, and it could be argued they are more of a danger to humans than coyotes. But again, we don't go shooting all the bears, just the ones that get too familiar. I never argued against shooting a coyote in your back yard (although I'd be careful with that), this isn't a "Never shoot a coyote" vs. "shoot all" coyote discussion. My biggest concern over danger is in urban areas. Hunters keep rural coyotes on edge...they don't follow to close when farmer John is out walking his dog.

If wolves hunt the small furry creatures then I'm sure Coyotes do too, and vice versa. I don't think wolves or coyotes are inherently "better" in a system. Wolves, coyotes, different practices and prey in some ways but if the wolves leave a vacant niche for a canine predator/scavenger then coyotes will fill it out. Interestingly, maybe coyotes will do this in a way some people like less than wolves--funny how that worked out then isn't it? Kinda like the old poison a gopher trick, which then poisons the hawks when they eat the gophers, which means more gophers 'cause fewer hawk kills... The small furry critters have done just fine for a long time when humans don't mess with 'em too much, I imagine they will again. But maybe some people want more small furry critters than medium-sized four-legged ones...Other animals were evolved here to be part of the predator prey cycles. Man changed that. Arbitrarily saying that coyotes are helping anything now is false. They are opportunist and highly efficient predators. They just don't kill mice etc. Unfortunately coyotes are not "filling" the wolf niche. They are distinctly different. The wolves just kept the coyotes from inhabiting this area and therefore protected the natural order and the birds and mammals that evolved to live here. You have to see coyotes for what they are...a man introduced species...like zebra muscles, sparrows, cane toads etc.

This leaves us back at the start of all this: killing coyotes for hundreds of years has shown that either you kill 'em all or don't bother, it doesn't do anything long-term. There are better ways to deal with coyote predation if it's a real problem. Spending money to kill coyotes reminds me of the guy who buys cheap tools over and over again. Long-term it's better to do something that works, and that makes sense. Maybe that's putting different types of stock in with each other; maybe that's better control of offal; lots of solutions that do work, but killing coyotes as policy just doesn't. Plus it just irritates me to see the government wasting money on something that doesn't work. I can not argue if it will work...this to my knowledge has not been tried up here. Given differing factors...as a trained scientist I would like to see the full study outlined...in the absence of that...a dead coyote means a live native grouse, red fox, kit fox, swift fox, fisher, martin, mink, rabbit etc.

I'll definitely read more posts, but I'm going out again and likely won't reply for some time. Still have a tag to fill. Best of luck to everyone!

As stated...while I am not a hunter nor do I care to kill anything myself...I eat venison given to me and like shooting guns... Being opposed to killing for fun...I can see a ligitimate argument to kill coyotes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es

[Norman]

People have been shooting, poisoning and trapping coyotes for a very long time obviously.

The effect of all this? Not much. Coyotes fit a niche, and they're going to stay there unless all of 'em are killed. As that's not likely to happen, killing coyotes is about as useful as p@ssing into the wind. Some people get a thrill out of killing something; OK, but don't call it useful, moral or even rational, it's just not. I hunt, but I cringe every time I see a photo on here of someone proudly holding up a dead coyote (or wolf, but for different reasons).

And it's a waste of tax-payer money, pure and simple. Plus coyotes eat a lot of gophers, mice, etc. etc., all "vermin" that people try to also kill...

Sorry to be blunt, but I've held my tongue on this a few times, I just can't on this one. Killing coyotes is bad science and bad for our public image.


You might change your mind when you see them kill a new born baby colt or lamb.