Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Predators and Varmints Woodchucks killed off by coyotes.

The eastern woodchuck is gone from the fields here in the Northeast USA!

The coyote which came here a few years ago has killed them off.

I really enjoyed woodchuck hunting and its gone. I have shot a few coyotes when I saw them. There was far far more shooting at the chucks.

you got to get off your azz to shoot coyotes.

the stupid flows freely from the OP

No kidding.

I guess we know the dominate predator in 99's neck of the woods.

Turn in the man card...

but he did manage to kill some woodchucks and blame the coyotes...

99, what 99 says is quite true in some areas.. I have hunted chucks on and off for many years, although I haven't done much in the last 12... When the coyotes came in, they nailed a lot of the chucks.. Killing coyotes in the brush and hay fields of the east is more difficult than it is killing them out west.. I know guys who hunt them with dogs like they used to hunt fox.. They do ok. But in a winter, the four or five guys who hunt together kill less coyotes than one hunter in good country out here..

The second big thing that has change the chuck population,is many of the old farms are growing up in brush.. Good chuck shooting demands good feed.. In the areas I am familiar with the old farms are becoming brush patches..

we have always had coyotes, and have always had 'chucks.

it is pretty easy to shoot out a woodchuck colony, but casual varminting won't touch the coyote population.

I'm in Maryland and for the years between 1975 and about 2000 I shot a lot of groundhogs. Now it is rare to even see one.

I hunt at least once a year in Wyoming and during the day there I would see at least a couple of coyotes. But back East it is rare to see them . They seem to have become mostly nocturnal.

About 5 years ago I was at a taxidermist's shop in Maryland right after hunting in Wyoming and I saw at the back of the shop what I thought was the body of someone's pet. When I mentioned that to the taxidermist he suggested I take a closer look. It was a female coyote that had been shot by a deer hunter. It was about 2 and half years old and weighed 53 pounds. The male coyotes in Wyoming average about 26-28 pounds and the females between 22 and 24 pounds. The dead coyote was the offspring of coyotes that had moved to the East via our Northern states and Southern Canada and had interbred with wolves. This was verified by DNA tests.

So now here in the East we have big coyotes who are mostly nocturnal. And here in Maryland we rarely see them during the day.

In addition to very few groundhogs here we also don't see many ground nesting birds. Pheasants are now almost non-existent.

I miss the pheasants and the groundhogs a lot and rarely even get to see a coyote.

Steve

My believe it is pesticides and farming practices that killed off the Groundhogs in the East more than shooting and Coyotes even tho I'm sure Coyotes have helped.

Do you have a lot of turkeys?

Sorry guys back East. It wasn't coyotes that decimated the woodchucks. It was me. I am ashamed of myself but in my defense I was young and bloodthirsty back then and the woodchucks were plentiful. I started at 11 with Dad's Winchester model 67, moved to a 22 magnum at 13 and a 6mm Remington at 18.

The toll I took on the Eastern woodchuck population was devastating.

Because nature abhors a vacuum, since 1981 when I moved out west, woodchucks from all the surrounding Eastern states have been moving in to my old stomping grounds. So great was the vacuum that to this day, woodchucks as far away as Virginia are making the trek to Northern New York to fill the vacancies. There is no telling how long it will take to replenish the empty woodchuck holes left in the wake of my carnage.

But seriously, when I was a kid growing up in Northern New York we had lots of coyotes and lots of woodchucks. Today that area is seeing far less chucks but I'm sure it has more to do with loss of habitat and changes in farming practices. Many farms have either grown up to brush or have been subdivided for urban development. The ground that is still farmed is farmed far more intensely and with more chemicals than when I was a kid. None of these things work in favor of woodchuck populations.

When I started shooting chucks in N.E. PA. (1983) the places we hunted were a virtual golf course of chuck shooting small 50 -75 acre fields with woodlots between. hand laid stone walls around all the fields and poor farming practices. The would cut hay twice a year, never all the way to the stone walls and used little to no chemicals. Around 1993 they started selling stone walls for a profit to stone masons. The farm also started spraying for bugs and weeds. Less chucks was the result...... by a lot. Around 1997 the dairy farming came to an end as the older farmers retired and their son was busy mining flag stone. Farm grew up and chucks vanished into the undergrowth. I hear that a few years ago that the fracking took hold there and a few wells are on this farm...

Steve,

What I've heard from more than one biologist is the decline in ground-nesting birds in the East is at least partially from a lack of ground cover in many areas, due to so many whitetails.

Seeing more Groumdhogs than usual around here. Along with Cottontails.
Shooting SC this evening we could have shot at least 30 rabbits. Small open ground surrounded by grown up knee high fields. Few trees for the Hawks and Owls to perch and wait.

Have had GC biologists tell me Pa never had many wild Pheasants because we never had the right habitat. But they were yet to be born when we did and flushing 10 to 20 birds a day wasn't all that hard if you had good legs.

Forgot to add that we had many more Deer then than we have had in the last 10 plus years. You also could easily flush 25 Ruffed Grouse daily in the same area that the GC considered overpopulated with Deer. And that was normal for decades. Reason being, great Deer cover and Ruffed Grouse cover are basically the same. I.E. New growth forest.

When it comes to upland birds, trapping died out and with it the nest robber numbers increased. Then the glamour birds-Hawks/Owls- became untouchables. Coyotes moving in obviously didn't help, but not sure they hurt all that much either. Too many Deer eating up the ground cover? He/she must have skipped too many classes or is guessing. Over mature forests? Bet on it.

Addition: Another example of people only knowing what exists in their present and assuming it always was the same.

shot 5 groundhogs yesterday afternoon here in maryland without really having to work at it. They must not have gotten the memo

Battue,

This biologist was with the West Virginia game department, and seemed pretty confident of recent research. I did minimal Googling and came up with the following links, among a number of others.

The article in the first link contains this pertinent quote: "Ironically, management of ruffed grouse and deer habitat has traditionally been considered as a “hand-and-glove” situation,since cutting of aspen and other fast-growing trees is done for both species. Grouse flourish where there is a mix of maturetrees and three to ten acre areas with dense growths of new trees used for brood-rearing. Deer also benefit from that type of habitat. But where there are too many deer, the new growth is eliminated and a grassy ground cover poorly suited to grousedevelops. Snowshoe hares and cottontail rabbit populations can be limited in a similar way."

https://www.wc4eb.org/wp-content/articles/MWC-DeerImpactOtherWildlife_pt3.pdf

www.wisconsinbirds.org/deerherbivory.htm

Western biologists have documented the same effects from the overgrazing of elk on quaking aspen thickets, some of the prime ruffed grouse habitat out here.

No doubt enough Deer could do so, but I've pretty much hung around those types of covers for longer than I want to admit. Also during times of some high Deer numbers in Pa. Times when you could easily see 30 Deer per day and 50 plus wasn't uncommon but have yet to see where they could extensively ruin thick Grouse nesting cover here in Pa.


Some examples:


This isn't a recent thick cut,but if lucky you could bump into 20 Deer around this spot if things went right and there is one in this pic. Some Grouse are usually close by and nest successfully.



Here happens to be two from right below the first pic.



Pa GC Biologists will tell you this area has too many Deer. I can tell you, it doesn't have even close to enough to eat the Grouse out of nesting cover.




The background of this pic is cover you have to fight your way thru. Deer may do it easily and they are in there. It would take more than I could imagine to wipe the nesting cover out.

So the question is this for myself. Do I believe everything I read written by so called experts? Used to, not any more. Will admit too many Deer in a big semi mature wood can be hard on Grouse nesting cover, but in ideal regrowth cover Ive yet to see any have enough Deer to do so.

Back on subject. Cousin called me today and wanted a scope recommendation. What ya doing? Right now looking at 4 Groundhogs. You seeing many? Hell yes, I killed 15 last week. Get your azz up here before the cuts get too high.

battue, I do not know about Pa. But I do know about this valley.. Since we got a biologist from Minn. in 2006 our deer and antelope herds have crashed.. While on the other side of the mountain, they prosper.. He is a mess.. Not a bad guy, either ignorant, or lazy as sin.. He by in large is responsible for the lack of deer and antelope in the upper Platte River Valley.. Most of these new ones only know what they have read in a book or have been told in class.. They are either too stupid or too lazy to look around the country and see what is happening.. It is sicking. We pay these bastards to sit on their ass.. I drive by this clowns house several times a week.. His game and fish truck is ALWAYS sitting in his drive way..

In Pa you have little actual contact with the biologists. Game Wardens are readily available if you want to chat. Problem is they get fed the current doctrine of the year. Disagree and they will refer you to the current mandates they are force fed. Agree and all are happy. Lots of different groups other than hunters currently pull on the Pa GC's skirt.

battue,

Good to know that you know so much more than any game biologist, that all game biologists are ignorant and agenda-driven--and that you can speak for all grouse cover, everywhere, at any time. I am sure there aren't any game biologists who've seen nearly the years and habitat you have.

At the time the WV biologist and I were discussing this very subject, we were standing on a piece of deer-over-grazed West Virginia land that had so little ground cover it couldn't have concealed a meadowlark's nest. Which is partly why the subject came up. The cover much over waist-high was thick enough to make shooting a grouse very difficult, but it you bent over you could see 50-75 yards between the young trees. He'd been familiar with this particular country for around 35-40 yards, and seen all sorts of changes.

Well you are jumping to smart azz conclusions. But it pretty much follows the norm around here. But before I do the same I will try to clarify. I didn't reference over grazed land with little ground cover that couldn't conceal a Meadow Larks nest and posted pics that showed just the opposite. It would be rare to find enough Grouse in that kind of cover to make it worth effort. Even mentioned it could occur on on more mature open cover, but you choose to avoid mentioning same. Either that or it didn't fit into a smart azz answer.

Ya sometimes I just don't agree with every so called expert. In this case it happens to be you.

My answer was smart-assed because yours was condescending, both to me and game biologists. In fact it implied that all game biologists are incompetent or mouthpieces for their agency.

Game biologists are humans, so naturally vary considerably in their competence and integrity. I know this partly because I was a wildlife biology major, many years ago, and even though I never made my living that way it acquainted me with biologists and their methods, partly through helping on more than one field study. Two of my favorite examples of incompetence or “paid results” are the Yellowstone Park biologist who claimed bison never migrated out of the park in winter until plowed roads and snowmobile trails appeared in the 20th century—part of a report that appeared while I was still in college. A more recent example is the report from a California university, funded by an animal-rights group, claiming that cattle grazing on prairie-dog infested ground gained MORE weight than cattle on PD-free ground. (The general rule among range specialists is a loss of 50% of available grass to prairie dogs.)

There are also some biologists with very limited outlooks. When mule deer populations started crashing in the early 1970’s, after decades of overall increases, often massive, biologists of course started looking at possible reasons why. I got into a discussion about this at a convention of the Mule Deer Foundation a number of years ago, held in conjunction with a meeting of western deer biologists. There was general agreement about the overall causes—including habitat changes such as subdivisions in mountain foothills and browse growing into mature forests, an increase in coyotes due to the cessation of the use of 1080, and a rise in populations of other big game animals, including whitetails and elk—
except from one guy. He insisted very different reasons caused the mule population to drop in his particular area of Colorado, which seemed very odd, since the drop was so wide-spread and simultaneous. (Localism is also popular among many hunters. In a Campfire thread a few years ago a hunter claimed that the well-documented increase in whitetail numbers since World War Two was BS, because he lived in a part of—yes—Pennsylvania where the population had dropped.)

Game biologists sure don’t agree on everything—during that same mule deer gathering two gray-haired biologists had to be separated in the lobby of the hotel during an argument over the effect of coyotes. In fact I’ve found game biologists and engineers to disagree more often (and vehemently) than just about any other professionals. However, most of them are dedicated to trying to find out why game populations go up and down, and willing to look intensively at all sorts of possible factors.

Game biologists don’t just work for government agencies or pay-for-results universities. Some work for hunting groups, especially those that advocate for various animals, or private landowners, and are actually looking for reasons and solutions, rather than creating propaganda or covering their employer’s butts.

They also must actually quantify their results, to provide their conclusions with back-up data. This means they can’t just say “a lot of deer,” but must provide reasoned estimates of numbers. Luckily, methods of making estimates have improved considerably in recent decades, one reason we out here in the West will eventually have a grizzly bear hunting season. Bait stations that provide hair for DNA testing have provided a far better idea of how many bears are out there, though anti-hunting groups continue to deny the results, using phrases like “not enough bears” (which is remarkably similar to “a lot of deer”).

“A lot of deer” also doesn’t mean much: Is it 10 deer per square mile, or 20 or 50 or 100? A whitetail biologist here in Montana did document over 100 whitetails per square mile on the Yellowstone River bottoms in the eastern part of the state, which is indeed “a lot of deer.” They also document the degree and type of over-browsing resulting from a lot of deer. But because you’ve flushed sufficient grouse in areas with “a lot of deer,” you somehow suspect field reports of deer impacts on grouse nesting are false.

When researching biological game studies for articles I look at a lot of ‘em from various parts of the country (or even the world), and from various sources, not just game department biologists but those employed by hunting groups (whether Ducks Unlimited or the Mule Deer Foundation), universities well-known for their competent wildlife biology departments rather than providing what a study-funder wants, or private landowners actually looking for solutions.

When I did a short search yesterday on the effects of deer browsing on ruffed grouse nesting, similar results showed up from a wide area of the country from the East Coast to the upper Midwest. Also, the field studies were done by biologists working for various entities, not just state game departments. This corroborated what my West Virginia biologist friend suggested—as I guess it would, since he’s a pretty thorough professional.

Mule Deer:"My answer was smart-assed because yours was condescending, both to me and game biologists. In fact it implied that all game biologists are incompetent or mouthpieces for their agency."

First, my reply wasn't condescending to you or game biologists. If you think it was anything other than disagreeing with words and an opinion-and while I do enjoy your work and appreciate your experience and wish to see it often-if you are looking to have your azz kissed, like more than a few on here do and have arrived at the point of thinking any who disagree are being condescending, well that's your problem not mine. I guess I didn't say the right words. "Well MD, while you have a vast amount of experience, I must humbly disagree on a couple points."
Hint: Don't hold your breath.

It was an opinion on what I have observed in prime Deer and Grouse habitat. Which in that type of cover it would take more Deer than I can imagine to have an adverse effect on Grouse numbers. I was throwing that observation out and also mentioned in mature covers it can be a factor.





MD: "Game biologists don’t just work for government agencies or pay-for-results universities. Some work for hunting groups, especially those that advocate for various animals, or private landowners, and are actually looking for reasons and solutions, rather than creating propaganda or covering their employer’s butts."


I have more than a little respect for the Game Biologists. They get it right most of the time. However, lets take the Pa GC for example. They have dedicated people on the whole. They are funded almost entirely by hunters dollars. Yet they have State imposed mandates that force them to study and improve the habitat on not only specific non-game species, but in some cases prey species that are not beneficial to the improvement of game numbers. IE: Eagles, Hawks, Owls. At some point there is an obvious conflict between the goal of one biologist against those of another. Hmmmm and all paid for by hunters dollars. No general fund money, no charge for a non-hunter to roam over a million acres of hunter paid for game lands.

I for one enjoy the Eagle and Peregrine Hawk cams that the GC currently partner with other organizations to not only increase their numbers, but also public awareness of raptors. But I have yet to hear a GW say, Ya I know your dollars are being spent to enhance species that will diminish Grouse, Rabbits, Squirrel hunting opportunities. Forget Songbirds hea!!!! And something is going on, because their numbers have been going down considerably in these parts for years. And again its my opinion the Deer have little to do with it.


No one said you WV friend is FOS. Did say that in prime first rate Grouse cover, Deer numbers have minimal effect on Grouse nesting success. Give him a call and ask him. Would be interested in his reply.

I understood your point that in marginal Grouse cover Deer numbers can have an adverse effect. You missed mine that they have minimal if none in prime covers. Not being condescending, just how it appears on this end.

Thanks for your explanation. That't what I got out of your post, but miscommunication often happens on the Campfire. (I also don't expect anybody to kiss my ass, as I think has been proven on this site many times.) I've enjoyed and learned from many of your posts over the years, so hopefully we can start over.

We have some of the same problems with the game department here in Montana--because it's part of the Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department.

Words get twisted no doubt. I also had little doubt they would straighten.

Take care,

We've got more coyotes now than ever, and more groundhogs around that we can shake ten stick at. Hell, I've killed two dozen out of my neighbors back yard over the last year alone, and that doesn't count the scores out agricultural fields.

As usual, Dumbass Don proves how much he DOESN'T know and DOESN'T do.

As for grouse, I would certainly like to see them (and quail) come back. Quail is all about habitat; that's been lost over the decades in this area and when the habitat is restored, the quail come back. Grouse? That's more complicated. On the NF lands, there's no "management" any more so there's increasingly less good grouse cover. On private lands, though, that's a different story and still no grouse. Could it be coyotes? Maybe, but they would seem to impact the turkey populations just as much, and we have TONS of those things (though increasing predation by coyotes on them). Could it be turkeys scratching out the nests and out competing them? I don't know. It's probably a combination of many factors, so teasing out where to start is a pain.

4, I used to shoot chuck's in Pa. and W. Va. The country I hunted is now about void of any chucks.. I know some of this is due to the farms growing up in to weed patches.. But the fields that are still in good shape have no chucks either.. It is great to hear there still are places with lots of these critters.. I used to prefer hunting them to everything but deer.. I also know they are not being shot off.. In that country there are very few people hunting chucks any more..

Some think our Eastern forest health and regeneration decline is caused by factors more significant than too many Deer.

Studies, who do you believe?

http://news.psu.edu/story/185931/20...blames-forest-problem-acid-rain-not-deer

There are also few dedicated Grouse hunters. Rare to see another when out.

True. I don't even hunt grouse. I just miss having them in the woods. Deer season just isn't really the same without a few "ticker testers" in the predawn...

battue, I was just thinking about acid rain.. I have a friend that is a life long resident of Clearfield county. He has a farm there, and is and avid hunter and fisherman..

Some years ago, he was talking with one of the ag agencies of the state.. He finally ask what do you know about my farm.. The guy said we have photos of your place and all the others, I can tell you what size rocks are in your fields.. So they visited about what he could or should do with the fields.. As the conversation continued.. He said I want to ask about how acid rain is affecting our wild trout and northern forests.. The agent said we are not permitted to discuss that..

globally warmed acid rain is the worstest......

Regarding declining Ruffed Grouse populations most everyone has their favorite expert and theory.

My expert is Dr. Scott Walter, Regional Biologist, IL, IA, MN and WI, Ruffed Grouse Society. He was the Upland Game Ecologist for the Wisconsin Department of Natural resources.

I have attended a couple of his seminars and invited him to walk through my woodlots to assess habitat improvement for grouse. In return he invited me to walk through his woodlots on his farm 40 miles north of me which showed not only does he talk the talk, he walks the walk. His farm is textbook forest management and not only did we experience a lot of grouse flushing, we jumped a lot of deer.

He will admit that deer impact grouse habitat, but only to a small extent. Yes, studies of fenced deer enclosures can show a larger impact, but that is in a sense a lab study and rarely occurs in nature.

http://ruffedgrousesociety.org/Walter%20move%20to%20RGS#.V2wjHLgrLIU

DNR's Scott Walter moves on to RGS

08/11/15

RGS in the News

The following article is about new RGS/AWS regional biologist, Dr. Scott Walter.

It seems that no matter how many career moves Scott Walter makes, his new jobs all feature listening for ruffed grouse drumming and flushing.

His recent appointment may actually put him in the best position to help improve habitat and eventually bring about an increase in this handsome, forest-dwelling game bird that is 3-4 times larger than a bobwhite quail.

The Ruffed Grouse Society and the American Woodcock Society (sister organizations) recently announced that Walter has accepted a regional biologist position covering Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa with RGS/AWS. Walter will be responsible for forest management efforts of RGS by working with landowners and government agencies to help ensure forest habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock and other wildlife.

“The exciting thing is the interaction at a number of levels to promote active forest management,” he said. “I’ll be available to do walk-throughs on wooded land and work on development management plans on public and private lands.”

After earning BS, MS and PhD degrees from several Wisconsin universities (Beloit College and UW) in science and wildlife ecology, he taught and did research at UW-Richland in Richland County from 1999 through 2011. From 2011 to 2015, Walter was the upland game bird ecologist and farm bill coordinator in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Walter will continue to reside on his six-generation Richland County farm where he and his wife, Erica, first experienced ruffed grouse drumming and began practicing active forestry.

“This spring my wife did hear a male grouse drumming about 30 yards into the woods in an area we improved,” Walter said. “I regenerated small clones of aspen and practiced oak harvesting in this and other areas.

“With ruffed grouse it’s a matter of ‘build it and they will come’ strategy. It works best with fairly large scale areas. That’s where the impacts are most meaningful.”

Ruffed grouse need a mosaic of old and young forests, biologists, including Walter, say.

Even though the ruffed grouse populations in southern Wisconsin have dropped during the last 40 years, improvements to the habitat can be managed for both timber and wildlife, Walter believes.

“If the habitat is there, the grouse will come. They are their own best indicator species of the habitat. If the birds are there, that tells us the habitat is right,” Walter said.

Supplemental introductions of grouse to a habitat are usually not practiced, or successful, unless the habitat is favorable.

“Habitat improvement for grouse works best if there are fairly large areas involved,” Walter said. “To make those areas meaningful in terms of population improvements, pulling several landowners together to create young forest habitat is necessary.”

Missouri transplanted about 4,000 grouse into areas of dwindling populations several decade ago. Some of those birds came from Wisconsin. Still, Missouri closed its grouse season in 2010.

Even though there are more acres of forest in southern Wisconsin than there were 60 years ago, large tracts of dense young forest is what grouse, woodcock and many other birds, and wildlife, need.

Simply putting grouse in the wrong forest habitat almost never works.

There are areas of NY state that were loaded with chucks back in the 70's and 80's that are very nearly devoid of them now. Other areas are still loaded with them. I don't know what caused it but it ain't coyotes as there are just as many or more yotes in the areas that are still full of chucks as the areas where they're nearly extinct. It isn't a lack of good habitat either as there are still plenty of good hay/alfafa fields in the devoid areas. I think I remember you saying you used to shoot chucks in Schoharie and Delaware Counties and So did I. I agree they aren't there in huntable numbers anymore. You need to go North a bit to find them now. The farmlands of central NY from Cortland to Syracuse still has good numbers.

Blackheart,

What areas in NY are now nearly devoid of chucks and what areas are still full of them?

Thank you

I went back and added to my previous post so your answer is there. There are other Counties in central NY with good numbers as well.

Blackheart,

I have never hunted in NY's Delaware or that other county in NY.

I only hunted chucks in NY's Dutchess county, the towns of Millerton and Amenia the most and also up along the NY border of NY in VT.

The chucks are gone.

They were in fields like this. The fields are still there and so are some deer. The chucks are gone.

Millerton, NY

👍

For me, a good day grouse hunting usually involves not seeing other grouse hunters.

Saw one along the roadside the other day and stopped and took a pic. Had to send it to and old Bud. A day later he replied with, where?


I texted back, can't remember and what really makes me mad is it was a Hen with chicks. Didn't see any chicks, but he doesn't know that.

Good thing none of you have ever ate my barbeque ground hog as you would want to kill them all. And the population would really be in bad shape. Lol

Mom would ask for a head shot young one and roast it in the oven. Also wanted them skinned, cooled and with the glands off ASAP. Done right, and she knew how they are excellent eating.

Going out tomorrow with my Cousin to see if there are still some hanging around.

Good luck!!! Miss that hunting..

Hey, Happy Birthday!!!!

I've eaten a good many woodchucks. BBQ'd, stewed or fried the young ones are good. Woodchuck liver is excellent fried with onions. Better than beef, pork or calf liver.

Thanks.

This field had around 8-10 Chucks popping up and down. Problem was we were shooting across a little valley and they were up high where the grass hadn't been cut-heads is pretty much all you could see-and they didn't stay up very long. Then even with a varmint bullet I was concerned about ricochet, so they got a pass.

Caught this one walking thru shin high corn down lower at 124 and shot from a sitting position. Good for field position shooting. Only shot of the day until I had to leave at 2pm..

Checked a couple other fields, but nobody was home.

Good time. Spent a good part BS'ing about days gone by. Will be back.

Good times.. Sure miss chuck shooting, but shot just over 100 prairie dogs this AM, so I should feel too bad..

What caliber Battue??

100 is a nice round count. 👍

.22-250

100 PDs is a pretty good morning for an old man on his birthday!!!

Thanks ingwe, you have a good one too.. You know this is the date in 1876 Custer was at a place called the Little Bighorn!! Bad day for him, but good one for us!!

If we had been there...the outcome would be different! 100 kills in the morning would have been a good start!

With all that brush that you boys in the east have, you had better learn to run some snares for those coyotes. By far the most effective method going to reduce numbers in large quantities.

ingwe, for sure..

atse, In the places I have hunted on the east coast snares are illegal..

I wouldn't be all that happy with my Dog sticking his head in one while hunting the thick covers.

I am friends with a PGC biologist, not involved with deer and quick to make that clear. One thing I often hear is the biologists gather the data, then make recommendations. The board then does whatever is politically proper. I am sure that you hear a lot MD, one of the PGC favorite tactics is to attack the hunters who complain.

Two choices. Whine about the problem,or fix it. Snares in capable hands would kill the vast majority of nocturnal,over hunted,educated coyotes. As to the dogs,the landowners would know about them,and alert you ahead of time.

If I owned land in the east, it would be open for snaring.Period.

You must think we only hunt on private land. Pa literally owns millions of public acres that are open to trapping and hunting. Should I ask the Govenor just were the snares are set?

Too many people on public land there to set snares without dog problems. I would try and pull the coyotes on to private ground and catch them. Shouldn't be too hard to do I would think.

I just got back from chuckin here in NY a few minutes ago. killed 3 with my old Marlin .22 mag.. Saw a couple more I didn't shoot at because of cattle in the background.

Private ground has all kinds of animals on it also..

If you know what your doing you will have very few if any nontarget catches. If there are 8 coyotes on that property with any frequency, I should catch 6 of them within 3 weeks.We are not talking about a long time period.

Show us a snare and where to buy it.

I make my own snares. There are several reputable snaring videos out that would get you on the right track. Check the trapper and predator caller magazine.There are a couple really solid guys that know what they are doing. John Graham comes to mind, although he traps a lot too.

Just for the record battue...domestic dogs generally won't fight a snare like wild animals will....I've caught my Cur dog in my own snares while running my trap line several times....once caught she just sets there and waits for me to come and let her loose.....I wouldn't want to leave her in one overnight but when you're close by like running a line or bird hunting there really isn't that much danger......
That's not to say that snares aren't dangerous because they are and should only be used in the right places by experienced hands but as usual....there's two sides to every story....
Don't take my word for it though....there's lots of information out there that will confirm what I'm saying if you care to look for it....

FieldGrade,

When it comes to trapping and such if you say it's so then that's good enough for me. Thanks and I'll take your word on it.

Regarding woodchuck hunting in my area - northern NJ and lower NY State: 1) many dairy farms are now gone, and with them cultivated pastureland; 2) farmers are now growing corn, not alfalfa; 3) coyotes; 4) after 9/11, even more folks wanted to be far from NYC, and farmland and woods became housing developments. In addition to all that, a friend told me that he called NYSDEC regarding the woodchuck "drought" in NY State. They told him there had been an outbreak of hepatitis in the woodchuck population. This was about 10 years ago.

I have a bunch of woodchuck rifles and nothing to use them on. I started to notice coyotes in woodchuck fields in the late 1990s. Now we have them in all 21 counties of NJ.

Went to a shoot today traveling East on the Pa Tpk perhaps 50miles each way. How many acres of hay, new corn, fallow fields, cut and uncut grass fields, etc did I pass thru? Sometimes you could see a mile on either side of the road and all predominately fields of some sort and all surrounded by wooded edge cover that the Groundhogs like. Who knows, but obviously saw only what I could on my narrow path. One small pass thru a small slice of Pa farm country. Only saw a couple cows and saw more Groundhogs than cows. How many Coyotes would it take? Well more than are running around.

I think perhaps when it comes to Groundhogs they are getting a bum rap.

You'd have probably seen alot more chucks if you'd driven through the same area in late afternoon/evening. 5:00 - 8:00 pm is primetime right now. I've been told there are still alot of chucks in Southwestern Pa.. I still see a few in Wayne, Susquehanna and Bradford Counties. In NY it depends on where you look. Delaware, Schoharie, Broome, Southern Chenango and Otsego are pretty barren. Get up into Cortland and Madison Counties and there are still quite a few. The farm I hunted yesterday near the Chenango/ Madison County border is loaded. The 3 I killed yesterday brings my total to 27 off that one farm so far this year and there are still alot left. There are still a couple back fields there I haven't even hunted yet. The owner just started cutting hay this week and only had one field next to the road mowed when I was there yesterday.

Also, battue, they coyotes may NOT be in that area.. If it is mostly fields and edge.. I am not sure.. I know in the area I am familiar with in Pa. Coyotes have moved in.. Not sure how many.. They kill a couple each deer season.. Some in turkey season.. In the area I am familiar with, I think the big thing is the farms are not being kept up and going to brush..

Maybe the fields that still could have groundhogs, are being hunted more than I realize.. I also wonder if they go through cycles like other game.

I would have to look back at my journals, but in the 90's I hunted chucks hard for three or four summers.. My best year was 186.. But many of those favored places are now fields of golden rod..

I was just trying to ease your mind where your gun dogs are concerned friend....but again..."snares ARE dangerous" and I don't recommend anyone that doesn't know what they're doing to run out and buy a bunch of snares thinking they're gonna do predator control....more likely they won't catch Coyote one but instead will kill a bunch of Deer and other non target animals....especially in the east where it's so densely populated....