It's also the middle of the "deep hunger season" in the Colorado mountains. It's got to be tough to make a living this time of year if you're a coyote.

Jim

The animals are rebelling! Have you checked your children? This time an incident from Colorado. Hey, at least I'm doing my part....good doggy COPPER MOUNTAIN – A man says his 3-year-old son was nearly attacked by an aggressive coyote while they were skiing over the weekend. Rich Kladstrup told 9NEWS he was skiing at Copper Mountain on Saturday morning when he and his son saw a coyote walking in the middle of the ski run. When they stopped, the coyote headed straight for his 3-year-old son. They were able to scare him off and the child was not hurt. Copper Mountain says it has been aware of the animal for some time and it has contacted the Department of Wildlife. The DOW says it had planned to go looking for the coyote later in the week after receiving a report of another, earlier incident. DOW says in that case the coyote had tried to bite another person on the arm, but because of all that person's ski clothing, the person was not hurt. After Saturday's near-attack the DOW went to look for the coyote and Copper Mountain shut down the nearby ski lift and closed the run during the search. The DOW found and put down the coyote and it is being tested for disease. According to the DOW, there is no indication it was sick, but it thinks the coyote may have been fed by humans and that is why it became more aggressive.

Jim, That's great info about the browsing damage being lessened by the elk dispersal. Reminds me some of what I've read about the Kaibab mule deer hen they virtually browsed themselves out of food and into mass starvation. I couldn't possibly agree more with your second post. I can remember growing up in central NY during the 70's and opening day of deer season meant that 3/4 of the male population would be absent from school.then when we'd arrive at some of our favorite state lands, there would be lines of cars parked along the roads that would remind me of Christmas shopping at the malls. Another kudos to the fish & game dept., at least DEC in NY, as back in those days while I'd see many deer, the bulk were does. The few bucks that we did see, were generally small 1 1/2 yr olds with tiny 4 +/- racks. In the past 10 or 15 years of both gun & bow hunting, the number of mature bucks I've seen have skyrocketed, and I've been lucky enough to have taken a good number of 8 pt + animals. Of course I don't think all the credit goes to fish & game,although the buck-doe ration seems more in check,as you suggested the dwindling numbers of hunters certainly have affected the age class of the bucks, and many more are able to exceed that 4 1/2 year age status. I firmly believe that anyone that chooses to enjoy nature should be paying their fair share. I can't begin to recall all of the times I've had hunts interrupted by "wildlife viewers".While this generally occurred during bow season and the nicer weather when the hikers, mountain bikers and bird watchers would be out in force, it certainly happened enough to be agravating. I certainly never forced a confrontation and in most cases the interrupter never knew I was there. While common sense would tell me that they had as much right to be there as I did, the irony that I had paid roughly $125 each year for the privilege to be sitting in my tree stand, and had the tags to prove it, they had paid absolutely nothing, never eluded me. Well out here in the wide open wild west, and vast amounts of public lands, one would think that would never be a problem. Of course "one" would be wrong, as out here unless you're willing to travel very far from the town, we're competing with off-roaders,atvs,dirt bikers and the like. Hell I like off-roading too, but the difference is that I have no issues paying a use fee for the privilege, ~Mick

"I feel as hunter success drops, license sales will diminish,and the loss of revenue in licenses and excise funds will be detrimental to all wildlife." Dancing, unfortunately the decline in hunters and license sales has been going on for 20 years already. Much of this is due simply to hunter demographics. Hunters are an aging group, as most youngsters today grow up in urban/suburban areas rather than rural areas, and with the increase in families headed by single women, there aren't dads around to teach their kids to love hunting/fishing. High tech gadgets keep the kids home and indoors, too. Few nonhunters realize that their state fish & wildlife agencies are virtually the only state agencies which receive little or no support from state tax dollars. Every other state agency is nearly 100% funded by state taxes. While there is certainly good justification for having hunters & anglers pay license fees and excise taxes on their hunting/fishing equipment, there is NO justification for expecting hunters & anglers to pay the entire cost. The fastest-growing outdoor recreation in this country is wildlife viewing, including everything from visiting National Parks to see big game animals to birdwatching. These people pay NOTHING in taxes to support the fish & wildlife agencies efforts. A few states have already found ways to significantly increase the revenue allotted to their state fish & wildlife agencies, either through small increases in state sales taxes or through a state lottery. But most states are already struggling to cope with declining revenues for fish & wildlife management and operation of public fishing lakes and wildlife management areas. The wildlife "watchers" are going to have to step up and pay their share. Jim

Control efforts for wolves and coyotes are seldom very effective. The more you kill, the more they ratchet up thei number of pups born. Ironically, the increase in wolves will cause a real decline in coyotes. Wolves will kill them every chance they get, just as with dogs. Coyotes, however, did the same thing to red fox populations. So wolves up means coyotes down which will lead to more red foxes. It's interesting that in Yellowstone the introduction of wolves has been a tremendous boon to the riparian and cottonwood/willow habitats along the streams. Elk have learned that they are more vulnerable to wolf attacks there, so they spend far less time in those habitats. That greatly relieves the browsing pressure on willow and cottonwood and other riparian species, so the streamside habitats have become healthier than they've been in decades, just because the elk can't spend so much time in them. That, in turn, leads to an increase in beaver populations, and that leads to more moose habitat, too. All due to the return of wolves. Elk may well be reduced somewhat, and they WILL be less accessible to hunters, most of whom seldom get more than 1/4 mile from a road. Jim

LOL ! I can't argue with that Scotty, perfect logic in my eyes.
That's what happens when you have disney pounded up your ass your whole life. Look at Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA.There's a fine poster child for vegetarianism. Can you say "ewwwwwww"?

I think bunny huggers should have to hug wolves and Mt Lions.

Ok, you beat me to the punch Jim! lol

Jim, I agree about the problems the expanding wolf population will bring to ranchers,and in many cases already is.I've also talked to a few who have been affected and been told that with the current guidelines, wolf depredation on livestock is almost impossible to prove conclusively.I'm also aware of a great deal of discontent in some areas suggesting that the expanding population is having an adverse affect on big-game populations,primarily elk.Don't get me wrong,I think wolves are magnificent animals and entitled to the deer and elk as much as any two legged hunters,but I do wonder about the long term affect if there isn't some type of sound management adopted.I'm sure that the wolves will never decimate the ungulate population to a point of no return,but I feel as hunter success drops, license sales will diminish,and the loss of revenue in licenses and excise funds will be detrimental to all wildlife. It may be a mute point though, since USF&W has approved management plans for wolves in MT,ID and now WY, so there's a good chance there will be some hunting in store and at least a reduction of a token number of wolves.Of course it remains to be seen what suits brought on by the bunny-huggers will do. Hell,depending on whose estimates you believe, the wolf population is already 3-5 times its target goal,so I seriously doubt that a limited take will have much affect on the continued expansion of their range and numbers.The coyote is a shining example of that.Nevada is one of the few states that still uses aireal shooting and cyanide traps, and they haven't been able to control them much.Mrs dance just sent me a couple cell phone pics about an hour ago,that she took of a coyote behind her workplace, in downtown Reno,lol.

You most definitely ARE mean, scotty!

That won't be necessary. Wolves are being removed from protection of the Endangered Species Act and will be under the management of the state wildlife agencies in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. That means it will be legal to shoot them if they are attacking livestock, and probably will be a hunting and/or trapping season, too. There won't be any need to shovel or shut up.

Jim