At 01:51 PM 12/10/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Grant,
>
>Thanks for the information, I haven't been there for years. See any
>deer?
>
>Recent news from the refuge has been in regard to a controversy over the
>dramatic decline of these white-tailed deer, already classified as an
>endangered species; the deer suffered greatly from pathological ailments
>as a result of flooding in recent winters. The USFWS wanted to
>immediately minimize further mortality, and saw coyote predation as
>something within their means of control. Animals rights activists
>viewed the coyotes as poor scapegoats and successfully got the USFWS to
>back down (with a lawsuit) and to call off the hunt for coyotes; I
>thought might be unfortunate due to its shortsightedness in regard to
>such a small population of deer.

I disagreed with the lawsuit but it appears the USFWS has a workaround,
saw an article that had a couple of possibilities listed. Trapping
and confining the coyotes during the fawning season was apparently one
idea, other non-lethal methods of control.

So, it looks like it may only cost tax dollars, not white-tailed deer.
Tax dollars I think could be spent more wisely for other conservation
work, but that's just my opinion.

> The coyotes may
>indeed be a scapegoat, but an immediate choice had to be made.

>Anyone else with insights on this?

It's not a scapegoat, the deer had been doing very well until changes
to the refuge engineered by that big 'ole 100 year flood of a couple
of winters ago. Coyote predation wasn't a serious problem until then
nor was the USF&W in the coyote control business on the refuge as far
as I know.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net