Reading comprehension? He pretty plainly stated that they couldn't get there due to clearcut logging. They were obviously there before the clearcutting took place. I see the same thing here. But will state that I prefer clearcutting to commercial thinning, because clearcuts grow back into thick cover much faster than commercially thinned timber, and provide a tremendous amount of feed when they do grow back. While commercially thinned timber is also undesireable habitat to many animals, and regrows cover much more slowly.

As far as coyotes, this all centers around the conneley longhurst model.in 1975.

If you actualy read it you will see its not possible in real world applications
Thats why it is a if then simulation. If a certain set of asumptions are true then this could be the outcome

Problem is the 8 asumptions they used to finally get the desired results

are just not going to happen.

As for click bait, I thought the title was pretty clear to open a short discussion. Click bait is a stupid title with no frigging info.

Antis or anyone for that matter, not looking at the bigger picture. Step out of your boots and look at the fight as an observer just for a minute, you’ll learn something. Look at their side and learn why they’re fighting you…….some are just nuts and there’s no talking to them, those are the loud ones who get all the attention. Same thing for both sides.
A lot of these new biologists were schooled by teachers who were schooled the same way. Not too many actually give a lot of time in the field and observing what they learned and adjusting it. It’s hard nowadays to find biology books that don’t fit one sides narrative, but they’re out there.
I’ve had a few rare discussions on social media where we kindly parted ways agreeing that we both loved wolves, just saw different management strategies……very rare though…..lol

97% of scientists agree with who ever is funding them,,,

With coyotes, when speaking of their capacity to predate fawns, research has shown removal of adults may trigger increased litter size, but the population will then consist of more younger, less experienced hunters that most likely will not predate fawns at the same rate as more experienced age classes would be capable.

As far as not seeing this back in the late 70’s and 80’s when fur bearers were trapped and hunted very hard, we probably were seeing it but didnt know it. In my area, trappers - including me - were running traps by day and running coon hounds by night. Many were not so conservation minded back then. I know for a fact the same creeks and bridges were trapped all season long. If one trapper pulled out, another soon moved in. We were literally trying to catch the last coon on the creek. Yet next year, we would catch just as many doing the same thing. It would be interesting to see the results if we could compare coon litter size in 1976 to 2026

Bs on coyotes

A little bit better answer than "Proper food and water conditions". I was talking about animals kicking birth rates up a notch when populations are low. If that was the case they would be having 20 young born 15 times a year around here.

I am just conveying the result of a years long study - I believe in south carolina. I think when considering animal behavior, it is all too common to base one’s knowledge on anectdotal evidence and local or regional behavior. I own 350 acres and thought I was doing a fair job managing the deer on that acreage. I bought an additional 62 acres in the same river bottoms, 8 miles away, that managed nothing like my home property.

Lot of probability in wildlife science. The probability is high this will happen, but maybe not.

All wildlife biologists with any integrity should begin their lectures with, "I don't know", and end them with "I don't know."
The best ones avoid "always" and "never" in their dissertations.
Sadly, even then, their work is bastardized by idiots with agendas not based in fact.

For those who remember our good friend Gulo...Jack Whitman.........you may also remember his tagline on this forum.

"......On the other hand........"

Theres one old wolf biologist that states regarding the wolves on Isle Royale that the more they learn, the more they realize they don't know.

Jack was working on a wolf book before he left us. That would've been a good one.

Jake: This is a book that Jack thought highly of. It is packed with facts, observations, theories, life histories, and so much minutiae that a guy needs to read a page and take a day to think about what he just read. Everything from different sounds to different tail positions on wolves. Super detailed

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226516970?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback

I believe I saw gulo once at BOG meeting where the fix was in to do private sector black bear control here. I got the impression he didn't trust us cheechako's not to screw this up?

He appeared to be a research biologist that was not an absolutist.

You need to read the study again......

Thanks W17! That’s actually the 2nd wolf book I bought. Excellent read and so far has been the best. Mech is one of those that hasn’t bashed trapping as a management tool. I’m on another one of his books and they’re good.

W17, I've got that one, and it has a lot of information in it, but I figure Jack's would have been better. Or at least I would have trusted his observations more.

Shakey, thing about that book is, Mech does not bash trapping, but a whole lot of the book is a collection of studies and reports by a bunch of different researchers, and one needs to pay attention to when you switch reading from one researchers project to another. Some of them it is pretty obvious by reading between the lines that their research leans with their bias. (this is a common phenomenon of researchers, regardless of which way their bias leans) Luckily the book contains their data as well as their conclusions and even the methods of obtaining the data, so you can read through that and get your own conclusions.

For sure BC. I like it when they put in brackets if something mentioned is theory/educated assumption, or fact. Mech also stresses if observations were collected with wolves in confined spaces like a zoo. Totally different animal. A lot of the European studies are from captive wolves.........pretty much useless.
Jacks book would've been the best because of the real time he spent living in their domain. Trappers also just have a different way of seeing things, probably more observant of the little things that others overlook.

Wlhen I majored in wildlife ecology we did several population studies using models for my statistics. I liked ecology because it was a "very loose" science. One study we did was fyke netting a 416 acres flowage for pike populations. In 6 days with 3 nets we handled well over 1,000 pike. We fin clipped the ones we captured so we could use that as part of our estimate. We estimated that the pike population of pike over 22 inches was 741 pike = or minus 252 at the 95% confidence interval or a range from 489 to 993. It seems counter to one's thoughts that the higher the confidence interval the "wider the range". That is due to the fact that one is trying to get more certainty about the number. From the studies I have reviewed it seems predators rarely are able to eliminate prey species when habitat for the prey species is adequate or good. As to rat populations during the fur boom of the late 70s and earlly 80s we here in the Midwest had almost a decade of wetter than normal and thus a huge habitat area for rats. Also species such as coyotes, coons and whitetail deer benefit significantly from the intervention and or actions of man and thus it makes things more difficult to measure, but over time models can be created that can better work with the outside influencers.

Bryce