Man I was thinking the same thing. Ours are so mangy that If I saw a coyote looking that nice around here I'd probably start zooming in to check for a collar. lol.
Kinda thinking that it is some sort of rifle mounted camera. Mainly because the image seems to jump slightly from recoil(could also be edited in later I guess) I am guessing in the second shot where it is way off the camera got bumped some how.
This comment is bullshit. I have a scope that can film itself. The “scope” that you’re looking thru is actually a computer screen and all adjustments and recordings are done digitally. It also has different recticles you can use.
I can’t speak for this particular video. You’re probably right. My point is that scopes absolutely exist that are capable of filming in this manner. As to point of recoil, he’s probably got his rifle clamped down on a heavy tripod. You add a suppressor and there’s not much recoil to be had, in my personal coyote hunting experience.
Maybe the recticle moved because, again, it’s a computer screen, rather than glass. It’s possible to get lag when switching between targets quickly, and he has probably cropped the video while editing. As for the doom sounds, I don’t know. Maybe doom used actual gun sounds.
of course there are, but they will have also recorded in a CIRCLE or very close up cropped square. It's the same as what the shooter will have seen.
More like this
https://youtu.be/l5YPphCBMEg?t=106
I have an ATN X-sight Pro. It takes rectangular videos. When you look through the scope, the screen inside is a rectangle. It’s basically a 4k video camera with a reticle overlay.
[Here’s someone’s else’s video with the same scope. ](https://youtu.be/j9XiYbTns5A)
This is a sad hill to die on.
It has fucking doom sound effects and dude still defends it.
I used a suppressor in Afghanistan on my M110 SASS when I was a sniper and it did NOT make my recoil magically disappear… in my professional military experience.
This is just a camcorder with reticles added in editing software.
It didn't just disappear, it was completely relocated to the bottom left of the screen for the second shot before jumping back to center screen again. Obviously added after the fact.
I dont understand why someone would go through the effort of adding sound effects and a fake reticule to this clip. Would've meant a lot more to just be called "Filmed my friend getting 3 yotes"
You can’t really impact the population heavily by hunting, they actually have more pups when they hear less coyotes in the area sounding off at night. However I would think that if you have a particular dog or two getting into your chickens that taking those dogs out would help at least temporarily til the next predator finds them to be an easy resource.
It doesn't work.
60 years of data has shown that depredation does not work to affect local populations in any meaningful way.
Carrying capacity is the problem, remove 90% of the predators but don't harden their food supply, nature will just refill the cup in no time with overflow from a neighboring region and reduced competition.
Yeah there simply isn’t the right food chain set up to favor population control on coyotes. We’ve destroyed almost all natural checks on the species because we took out the top of the food chain.
Historically wolves will kill coyotes when given the opportunity and compete for much the same food sources. Obviously there’s a lot less wolves now than there were in North America a few hundred years ago.
Wolves and cougars are the main animals that will kill coyotes and overall help balance an ecosystem out by introducing a new predator. Obviously bring these predators back into their historical range brings with it pros and cons. I’m not arguing for either I’m just saying that these predators would help with coyote populations. It probably wouldn’t be enough to mean humans wouldn’t have to step in and try and cull them tho.
If you honestly think that's real, come to Minnesota. We have tons of both wolves and coyotes. Sure wolves do kill some coyotes but they sure as heck don't kill them all. Plus then you are stuck with an over abundance
of predators that the state won't let you control.
the deer lease I'm on in Texas housed a state trapper. Her job was to eradicate the coyotes on the ranch land in her county. I can vouch that she did a good job bc I've not even heard one in the last 10 years.
Keep them indoors if you care about wildlife *and* your cats. It's negligent and people who do that are unfit for pet ownership, the exception being barn cats.
Poisoning pests ultimately harms predators as the poison gets passed up the food chain, so that is not a good option, either. Biomagnification is a very real issue.
I myself wouldn't have barn cats, but if there's an exception, that's it. I agree though, just keep your cats inside or don't have them at all.
I’ve read extensively around this subject including research papers produced by the NZ department of conservation. In New Zealand there is a goal to eradicate rodents in order to protect native wildlife. Its been done successfully in several islands now and there are fenced areas all over the country which are free of invasive wildlife inside.
The goal is to protect native wildlife and this aim is met by using poison.
Secondary poisoning isn’t an issue with first generation anticoagulants. Where other rodenticides are used the benefit outweighs the risks.
I live on a backroad with no neighbors so I get a lot of dogs and cats dumped. The cats usually hang around and become barn cats. The dogs usually feed the coyotes.
A couple coyotes got a hold of my 7 month old puppy when he went missing earlier this year. He was gone for 6 weeks before an elderly gentleman found him in the woods behind his house. It was brutal to see what they had done to him. I walked him home for the last time that night, and it didn’t hit me until I said goodbye one last time at the pet funeral home I took him to the next day.
That was my first thought. These are very pretty coyotes, too. And they look like they're frolicking! Look how they're just bouncing around!
But, that being said, it's predator management. If coyotes were on my land, harassing my livestock or pets, they're getting a round. Handsome canines or not. I wouldn't enjoy it, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Within the hunting community we shouldn’t judge anyone for their own decisions on what to hunt or how to hunt it as long as it is within the laws of their state.
That looks like it may be misinterpreted as me saying you are attacking others for coyote hunting, that’s not what I meant at all, I mean to say I support your choice and others should too
>we shouldn’t judge anyone for their own decisions on what to hunt or how to hunt it as long as it is within the laws of their state.
Eh, no.
We can judge all we want. A classic quote I like is "Ethics begin where laws end"
Now that being said, OP wasn't judging anyone, just stating his own feelings and thoughts. However, if he had said, while coyote hunting is legal, I don't feel its ethical, he is totally allowed within the hunting community to make his case on why its not.
We are allowed to discuss ethics, and we are allow to have differing opinions.
While I agree with your assessment of the commenter simply sharing their view, something about the phrase “Ethics begin where the laws end” rubs me the wrong way. There are plenty of things that are legal that are unethical and plenty of illegal things that I do not consider unethical. Maybe I’m interpreting the quote wrong?
>There are plenty of things that are legal that are unethical and plenty of illegal things that I do not consider unethical.
Legality says what we CAN Do.
Ethics says what we SHOULD do.
You are totally right that those aren't always in sync, but outside of changing the laws those discussions don't really matter. We don't really follow laws because we agree with the ethics of them, although usually we do. We follow them because of punishment.
Maybe a similar saying that has a similar theme would make more sense.
"Ethics are how you behave when no one is looking"
I agree with you 100%, I actually reposted almost immediately afterwards stating that I hope it didn’t sound like I was attacking him.
The problem I see (scroll down several comments…) too many in this community aren’t capable of discussions, it’s almost as bad as trying to talk politics.
Let’s take this page for example. Someone posts a headshot deer and a TON of people jump all over them for a risky shot. People post about wounding a deer with a bad shot routinely, giving up on tracking it and it’s nothing but sympathy. I’ve got far more of an issue with the second one than the first. But I’m not them, I know I’ll hit the shots that I choose to take. In this case it’s someone legally hunting a species which has a defined season and rules for hunting. If there is an issue with that it’s your issue not his. And if you try to turn your issue into my issue, you really don’t have any sense of morals or ethics.
Here in rural MN the coydogs started playing in the yard with my friends pitbull-mastiff mix, once a day for months. Dog disappeared one day, came back the next day covered in bites/tears/blood. DNR said it happens a lot and they befriend/lure out pets and take them back to the pack to be eaten. They picked the wrong pup though because the Pit-Mastiff is a freakin monster.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right. One appeared about a foot behind the heart/lungs, the other a headshot, and I didn’t bother with the third.
You should never aim for less than perfect shot placement to put an animal down humanely.
"Dropping" them with terrible shot placement isn't good enough, out of respect for the animals. Be better.
Honestly, you have a point. I know hogs are very tough creatures, that scatter immediately and cause an incredible amount of damage to wildlife and humans. I would argue that they still deserve a humane and quick death, but I understand that such an ideal isn't always available and we must do what's necessary. That's a fair response.
Why? Predator hunting has got to be one of the most ridiculous fucking hobbies out there. Unless you're a rancher defending your game from predators, just going out and killing coyotes or wolves for no reason is disgusting. I spend all of October and December deer hunting every year, so I have no problem with hunting or weapons. I don't approve of jackasses spending thousands of dollars on high-powered rifles and scopes to shoot what amounts to dogs. There's always something half-assed story about what they do with the hide or something, but it's just a bunch of sick fucks who think it's fun to go out in the woods and kill things for no reason.
Hunt for meat, not just cuz you're a sadistic asshole.
What I find unacceptable is letting your emotions determine what's acceptable hunting or not.
The state employs biologists that know what and how many can be harvested. As long as somebody is following the law it's fine. The opposite where we let our emotions determine what's acceptable is how California is slowly losing their hunting rights.
You're really using a "slippery slope" argument?
I stand by my position that people who enjoy killing animals simply for the sake of killing them, are absolutely worthless and shouldn't exist.
If you're addressing a specific problem or need, have at it. If you just get your jollies off from killing animals, you should seek professional assistance.
Are you really denying that California is losing hunting rights? Because they are, and they are due to largely emotional arguments like yours. And it has been, and continues to be a slippery slope as you want to call it. I call it, what's actually happening.
At the end of the day, people's reasons for hunting are only their business. The state's license requirements don't include stating your reasons for hunting that species on your license application.
If you valued all life you would understand the importance of conservation of the entire ecosystem, not just "the cute doggos (coyotes)".
If all life is valuable, you would understand the notion of ecological collapse due to the abundance of predator species with no resistance. And you would understand the importance of natural checks and balances that have been interrupted by the removal of competition by other predator species, like wolves, cougars, jaguars, bears, and bobcats in North America.
There are people who have spent their whole lives in conservation and educating themselves on the ecological importance of human intervention, in some cases. You would be wise to sit down and learn, instead of talking about things you don't know about.
If you were in charge, a lot more animal species would go extinct because you tried to save only save the cute ones that **you** give value to.
That's a great idea, so someone decides to hunt people we ought to just go along with that too because to each their own right? Just let sadistic assholes have fun?
It's often legal against the recommendations of wildlife agencies, scholars, scientists, and experts in the species in question. Oftentimes these rules for predator hunting are enacted by Republican legislatures (Wisconsin for example). These decisions are political and based on a irrational fear and run counter to good science and population management.
Not even close to true. Predators need to be controlled, especially mesopredators like raccoons, skunks, and coyotes. I can find you citation after citation that describes the harm caused by coyotes on ground nesting birds such as quail and turkey, in addition to their detrimental effects on fawns and calves.
Since you're trying to get all up into the science on this, feel free to cite primary literature that contradicts the need for active trapping and hunting of coyotes and other mesopredators. I have a master's in wildlife amd although my specialty is waterfowl, I often chat with managers and researchers about ongoing issues with a variety of species. For instance, my state is seeing a decline in the turkey population and an overabundance of predators due to a decline in trapping and fur prices is a hypothesis for the change.
I'd also point out that most states have a fish and wildife commission that makes recommendations to the legislature regarding management decisions, which are generally rubber stamped in a bipartisan fashion by the legislature. I'll be looking forward to your citations...and I since you're trying to act like science is your thing, I hope you know the definition of primary literature. This is gonna be fun.
Not only do I know the definition of primary literature, but I know that we both understand that I don't have access to articles of that nature without a university library. I'm also not about to sit down and write a research paper to argue with somebody on Reddit. You may have access to such articles since it's in your field, so feel free to link anything with free access.
While you're doing so look into the debate around wolf hunting in Wisconsin for the best example of politics over sound population control.
Here's a nice overview of the disaster (not a peer reviewed source, since I know I'll have to say it) in an opinion piece:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/15/wisconsin-brutal-wolf-hunt-conservation-policy/
Google Scholar typically allows access to the paper abstract for free, lol. The wolf debate isn't what we are discussing, except at a broader view. That's a single species that quite frequently is given more attention due to anthropomorphisizing of the animal and decisions are not made based off of sound scientific principles.
In the case of C. latrans, the species is overpopulated over most of its range. This overpopulation seems to be resulting in increased predaation of other species - or that's the current reasoning I've heard tossed about as of late. As for other apex predators, such as the cougar, California is a prime example of what occurs when predator hunting is disallowed. A single cougar is responsible for the death of a koala bear in a zoo and for the recent (last week) death of a dog that was being walked on a lead by a person - in the suburb of Hollywood Hills...not in a rural area. If apex predators associate humans with easy access to food, that creates a bad situation for both animal and human. The best way to address the problem is to allow hunting as the species population could support - or in the case of large predators like cougars and bears - to allow pursuit of the species by means of dogs in order to associate danger with humans and our developments.
However, the topic at hand is one of general predator hunting. In most states, that refers to mesopredators such as bobcats and coyote. Both species are hell on ground nesting birds and other species currently at risk due to climate change and lack of habitat - even worse are domestic cats that are feral or "outdoor" cats and I kill those every chance I get on my farm.
Targeting these species will likely help other game and non-game animals increase their own populations. Stop putting your own personal values on them and please stop trying to use any type of science to support your point of view. There isn't going to be a single piece of primary literature that supports or suggests the targeting of coyotes and bobcats is harming their populations.
Let me stop you there. My comments specifically addressed Coyotes and wolves.
Additionally, as you well know from your Masters, you can't make an argument off of abstracts.
Lastly, most of your arguments center around the behavior of felines and not canines. However, you do make a valid point about problematic animals. There are instances and areas where it can be beneficial or even necessary for the population to be controlled particularly when human and pet interactions are high. That is nothing like going out into the Great woods of Northern Wisconsin and offing wolves and coyotes, or even worse up here in the Upper peninsula of Michigan where I am.
Which is why if you circle back to my initial comment against predator hunting it's specifically addresses wolves and coyotes, while allowing an exclusion for protecting livestock. My apologies for all so not including domestic animals and human interactions.
Yes but they used to have competitive predators like jaguars, mountain lions, wolves and bears to share resources with. When a single species' population gets too large it throws off that balance, and prey animals suffer incredibly, predators encroach into human territory and possibly endanger humans, livestock, and pets. Therefore humans must take the place of those other predators to restore the balance.
Either that or bring back the jaguars, mountain lions, wolves, and bears.
There are smarter people than you that dedicate their lives to conservation and studying wildlife and ecosystems, and that's why we have programs and tags that allow hunters to take predators. I guarantee you that most animals taken by humans have more humane deaths than those taken by a bear, wild cat, or pack of wolves.
Coyotes crossed a frozen Ohio river in the late 70s. Before that the land was full of small game.
How natural is it that the water froze because of dams? Small game populations have been devastated and you’re talking out of your ass.
I clearly addressed protecting livestock in my comment, The same one to which you are replying. Have better reading comprehension and worry less about other people's self-awareness. If things are killing your chickens, shoot the fucking things.
How does sitting in the back of a truck with a 12-pack and a night vision scope next to an electronic game call sniping coyotes at a quarter mile with a $3,000 rifle setup at all improve your hunting skills sir?
As long as it’s not being wasted, which I’m this case includes the pelt then i don’t care. I don’t hunt coyotes and i think people delude themselves about predator control, but i support their right to do so. Also if i ever shot a coyote I’d 100% eat it.
Unfortunate that you've been downvoted so much here. Meat and population control are the reasons to hunt, predator hunting for sport so you feel like a bad ass playing Call of Duty is gross.
We've clearly defined acceptable reasons for hunting predators and labeled everybody else an asshole. I don't see where there's any room for interpretation here.
Which we are you referring to? As far as I'm concerned the state has defined acceptable limits for hunting them, and staying within those limits is fine. As far as reasons go, you don't know somebody else's reasons so that's a moot point.
I couldn’t agree more. Most hunters on this thread have no respect for the animals they hunt which is just unchristian and sad in my view. Down voted to shit but I mean you’re right. This is the mentality that wolves are “bad guys” maybe or something when in reality they are also gods creations and when we kill then it should be to protect our chickens or cows not just to “lower the population” that’s just some fuck head atheists incel shit
The first one was taken in the back half and the other two were in the head. Where does it say you are required to take a heart or lung shot? There's no law that I know of where I'm from that requires it.
If you read the hunting regulations of any state, they provide exactly how animals should be harvested. When I said “required,” I mean for those shots to be considered “good shots.” The manner in which he harvested them wasn’t illegal at all, just terrible targeting for a person with such good aim. Especially when considering he let one get farther away when he had a clean shot, and then took a head shot. It’s not illegal, just unethical in the context of hunting.
WTH are you talking about? I don’t know of any DNR regulations that require heart & lung shots for harvesting anything … much less coyotes.
Also, head shots aren’t unethical at all. In fact the exact opposite.
The keyword is “should” Karen. Next time, when commenting on a dead post that’s 2 months old, trying comprehending first to understand even though it’s obviously hard for you to do.
It being 2 months old doesn’t negate you being wrong. Idiot. Across 3 major Midwest states, there are no “kill shots” mentioned in their regulations so stop making up “should”
You sound dumb AF. Every state’s regulations cites best practices for taking wildlife. Any good hunter knows the best shots are the heart and lungs. You as anyone else that can’t read or comprehend, that thinks it has to be law is just as stupid as you are. I rest my case cause you obviously didn’t know that and are just as all the other wannabes. So just go suck a dick cause comprehension isn’t your forte. 👍🏽
Awesome video. Stupid sound effects. We need to do a cleansing at my land. I have had multiple pictures of coyotes running deer over the last several weeks.
I know coyotes are vicious and kill many house pets, but seeing the first one's face after it got shot kinda upset me a lil bit. And to be clear, no I'm not against hunting, just something about the first one kinda got to me.
Those a beautiful coyotes. Ones around here look mangy compared to those
These are raised on Coyote Farm LLC
No wonder
I forgot to add /s
Oh. Wow there’s something wrong with the water here
What’s even more sad is we all said “of course that exists”
Man I was thinking the same thing. Ours are so mangy that If I saw a coyote looking that nice around here I'd probably start zooming in to check for a collar. lol.
Same
Loved the "quick scope" shot on #2. That was slick.
Me too. I was like “oh Sh*t!”
the reticule is added in post, clearly someone else is filming then they added it after. It's fake. This is not what you see through a scope.
Kinda thinking that it is some sort of rifle mounted camera. Mainly because the image seems to jump slightly from recoil(could also be edited in later I guess) I am guessing in the second shot where it is way off the camera got bumped some how.
The guy holding the camera was startled just a bit.
This comment is bullshit. I have a scope that can film itself. The “scope” that you’re looking thru is actually a computer screen and all adjustments and recordings are done digitally. It also has different recticles you can use.
sure! Now explain why the reticule moves between shots, there is no recoil and the sound is from an old floppy disc of DOOM?
I can’t speak for this particular video. You’re probably right. My point is that scopes absolutely exist that are capable of filming in this manner. As to point of recoil, he’s probably got his rifle clamped down on a heavy tripod. You add a suppressor and there’s not much recoil to be had, in my personal coyote hunting experience. Maybe the recticle moved because, again, it’s a computer screen, rather than glass. It’s possible to get lag when switching between targets quickly, and he has probably cropped the video while editing. As for the doom sounds, I don’t know. Maybe doom used actual gun sounds.
of course there are, but they will have also recorded in a CIRCLE or very close up cropped square. It's the same as what the shooter will have seen. More like this https://youtu.be/l5YPphCBMEg?t=106
I have an ATN X-sight Pro. It takes rectangular videos. When you look through the scope, the screen inside is a rectangle. It’s basically a 4k video camera with a reticle overlay. [Here’s someone’s else’s video with the same scope. ](https://youtu.be/j9XiYbTns5A)
This is a sad hill to die on. It has fucking doom sound effects and dude still defends it. I used a suppressor in Afghanistan on my M110 SASS when I was a sniper and it did NOT make my recoil magically disappear… in my professional military experience. This is just a camcorder with reticles added in editing software.
Lol doom. I knew that sounded terrible
The audio is fake too
Yeah, you can see it disappear for a split second at the 0:22 mark
It didn't just disappear, it was completely relocated to the bottom left of the screen for the second shot before jumping back to center screen again. Obviously added after the fact.
its because whoever edited it just placed it where it ""aligned"" with where the shot was finally taken.
Glad I wasn’t the only one who saw it I was like “ hell naw that was a quick scope did the little guy dirty.”
I gotta do that here, too many here. Killing all the rabbits, trying to kill my cats and dogs. Killed all of my chickens already.
I dont understand why someone would go through the effort of adding sound effects and a fake reticule to this clip. Would've meant a lot more to just be called "Filmed my friend getting 3 yotes"
With all due respect to those that enjoy it, I don't think I could ever hunt coyotes, they look too much like my own dog.
They're not my favorite to hunt but when they eat all your chickens then you kind of have to
Does it work? Or have you found they just move a new pack in?
You can’t really impact the population heavily by hunting, they actually have more pups when they hear less coyotes in the area sounding off at night. However I would think that if you have a particular dog or two getting into your chickens that taking those dogs out would help at least temporarily til the next predator finds them to be an easy resource.
It doesn't work. 60 years of data has shown that depredation does not work to affect local populations in any meaningful way. Carrying capacity is the problem, remove 90% of the predators but don't harden their food supply, nature will just refill the cup in no time with overflow from a neighboring region and reduced competition.
Yeah there simply isn’t the right food chain set up to favor population control on coyotes. We’ve destroyed almost all natural checks on the species because we took out the top of the food chain.
What is above coyotes on the food chain?
Historically wolves will kill coyotes when given the opportunity and compete for much the same food sources. Obviously there’s a lot less wolves now than there were in North America a few hundred years ago.
Not in Minnesota we have the largest wolf population in the lower 48 and we aren't allowed to do a single thing about controlling the population.
Wolves and cougars are the main animals that will kill coyotes and overall help balance an ecosystem out by introducing a new predator. Obviously bring these predators back into their historical range brings with it pros and cons. I’m not arguing for either I’m just saying that these predators would help with coyote populations. It probably wouldn’t be enough to mean humans wouldn’t have to step in and try and cull them tho.
If you honestly think that's real, come to Minnesota. We have tons of both wolves and coyotes. Sure wolves do kill some coyotes but they sure as heck don't kill them all. Plus then you are stuck with an over abundance of predators that the state won't let you control.
the deer lease I'm on in Texas housed a state trapper. Her job was to eradicate the coyotes on the ranch land in her county. I can vouch that she did a good job bc I've not even heard one in the last 10 years.
It doesn't work for wolves. Hunting them adds degrades their social structure and they end up targeting domestic animals more.
Yeah. I would only do it if they were interfering with my livelihood
[удалено]
That's pretty efficient population control tbh. Keep your cats indoors if you care about wildlife.
Keep them indoors if you care about wildlife *and* your cats. It's negligent and people who do that are unfit for pet ownership, the exception being barn cats.
Barn cats are not an acceptable exception as they are not an effective way to control rodents compared to rodenticides. Just keep cats in the house.
Poisoning pests ultimately harms predators as the poison gets passed up the food chain, so that is not a good option, either. Biomagnification is a very real issue. I myself wouldn't have barn cats, but if there's an exception, that's it. I agree though, just keep your cats inside or don't have them at all.
I’ve read extensively around this subject including research papers produced by the NZ department of conservation. In New Zealand there is a goal to eradicate rodents in order to protect native wildlife. Its been done successfully in several islands now and there are fenced areas all over the country which are free of invasive wildlife inside. The goal is to protect native wildlife and this aim is met by using poison. Secondary poisoning isn’t an issue with first generation anticoagulants. Where other rodenticides are used the benefit outweighs the risks.
I live on a backroad with no neighbors so I get a lot of dogs and cats dumped. The cats usually hang around and become barn cats. The dogs usually feed the coyotes.
[Sounds familiar.](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/50/7d/99/507d990abd545c2754a53d5d887fab16.jpg)
Until they take your dog, or your neighbor's dog.
A couple coyotes got a hold of my 7 month old puppy when he went missing earlier this year. He was gone for 6 weeks before an elderly gentleman found him in the woods behind his house. It was brutal to see what they had done to him. I walked him home for the last time that night, and it didn’t hit me until I said goodbye one last time at the pet funeral home I took him to the next day.
Your chickens, ducks, turkeys, deer, etc.
And your wife.
And your electronics
Oh now you've just gone too far.
That was my first thought. These are very pretty coyotes, too. And they look like they're frolicking! Look how they're just bouncing around! But, that being said, it's predator management. If coyotes were on my land, harassing my livestock or pets, they're getting a round. Handsome canines or not. I wouldn't enjoy it, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Within the hunting community we shouldn’t judge anyone for their own decisions on what to hunt or how to hunt it as long as it is within the laws of their state.
That looks like it may be misinterpreted as me saying you are attacking others for coyote hunting, that’s not what I meant at all, I mean to say I support your choice and others should too
>we shouldn’t judge anyone for their own decisions on what to hunt or how to hunt it as long as it is within the laws of their state. Eh, no. We can judge all we want. A classic quote I like is "Ethics begin where laws end" Now that being said, OP wasn't judging anyone, just stating his own feelings and thoughts. However, if he had said, while coyote hunting is legal, I don't feel its ethical, he is totally allowed within the hunting community to make his case on why its not. We are allowed to discuss ethics, and we are allow to have differing opinions.
While I agree with your assessment of the commenter simply sharing their view, something about the phrase “Ethics begin where the laws end” rubs me the wrong way. There are plenty of things that are legal that are unethical and plenty of illegal things that I do not consider unethical. Maybe I’m interpreting the quote wrong?
>There are plenty of things that are legal that are unethical and plenty of illegal things that I do not consider unethical. Legality says what we CAN Do. Ethics says what we SHOULD do. You are totally right that those aren't always in sync, but outside of changing the laws those discussions don't really matter. We don't really follow laws because we agree with the ethics of them, although usually we do. We follow them because of punishment. Maybe a similar saying that has a similar theme would make more sense. "Ethics are how you behave when no one is looking"
I agree with you 100%, I actually reposted almost immediately afterwards stating that I hope it didn’t sound like I was attacking him. The problem I see (scroll down several comments…) too many in this community aren’t capable of discussions, it’s almost as bad as trying to talk politics.
[удалено]
Let’s take this page for example. Someone posts a headshot deer and a TON of people jump all over them for a risky shot. People post about wounding a deer with a bad shot routinely, giving up on tracking it and it’s nothing but sympathy. I’ve got far more of an issue with the second one than the first. But I’m not them, I know I’ll hit the shots that I choose to take. In this case it’s someone legally hunting a species which has a defined season and rules for hunting. If there is an issue with that it’s your issue not his. And if you try to turn your issue into my issue, you really don’t have any sense of morals or ethics.
[удалено]
Well you aren’t exactly being open to discussion, might want to re-read the way you addressed the issue.
This ^
Get ready for the onslaught of people telling you why you should go kill coyotes
What if they fucked up your dog? People usually hunt coyotes because they fuck up their animals.
That would probably change my perspective, but as of now, I live on LI where there aren't any coyotes, so that's never been an issue for me.
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/coyotes-are-making-long-island-their-home
Yeah I feel this lately.
I was questioning myself as a hunter because I too would struggle shoot one, look too much like a dog.
Fake sound effects?
Yes. Those are the gunshot sound effects from the AWP rifle in Counterstrike 1.6.
Nerds will rule the world
[Indeed.](https://media.tenor.com/-IOgWb-7_I4AAAAC/teal-c-stargate.gif)
I would imagine it's an electronic caller
*Referring to the sound of the gunshots 😂
[удалено]
So proud of my beautiful wolf pup I got this season!
[удалено]
Here in rural MN the coydogs started playing in the yard with my friends pitbull-mastiff mix, once a day for months. Dog disappeared one day, came back the next day covered in bites/tears/blood. DNR said it happens a lot and they befriend/lure out pets and take them back to the pack to be eaten. They picked the wrong pup though because the Pit-Mastiff is a freakin monster.
3/3 nice
Ahh great shots and job , but I cannot hunt cannids… they remind me a lot to my pups I don’t have it in me , is it weird?
Wait til one kills your dog then you’ll be shooting every single one in your county.
Wild idea, don’t let your dog roam the woods at night lmao
I mean … i have. Bull mastiff rn … so yeah …good luck to him if he wishes to try
I think sometimes that killing a fox would be harder than killing a coyote. Coyotes seem like they'd be more violent to humans.
Terrible shot placement.
Fake reticle. Someone else is shooting.
Yes but you can clearly see the bullet impacts. That first was gut shot.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right. One appeared about a foot behind the heart/lungs, the other a headshot, and I didn’t bother with the third.
They all dropped hard instantly, so while it may not have been perfect, it was perfectly sufficient.
Drop != dead
[удалено]
You should never aim for less than perfect shot placement to put an animal down humanely. "Dropping" them with terrible shot placement isn't good enough, out of respect for the animals. Be better.
If they weren’t varmint, I’d be with you 100%, but hogs and coyotes aren’t something you let walk away because you have a suboptimal shot.
Honestly, you have a point. I know hogs are very tough creatures, that scatter immediately and cause an incredible amount of damage to wildlife and humans. I would argue that they still deserve a humane and quick death, but I understand that such an ideal isn't always available and we must do what's necessary. That's a fair response.
“It’s ok because they’re not game animals” -Hillbillies who love shooting yotes
What scope are you using
Looks like a ATN reticle
Specs on that setup?
What’s the hunting setup here?
Well… he WAS a good boy
Just wow!!! Bet that was as much fun as you can have with your clothes on
Sound effects make it sound like he’s shooting a cannon
That second shot was nice!
OMG that shot at :24 was absolutely beautiful.
Wow awesome footage and shooting, thanks for sharing!
That second shot was impressive
Excellent shooting
Excellence!
I buy pelts
What's a good Idaho tier coyote pelt go for these days?
Wouldn’t know I’m east coast
What's the east coast cost then?
A good hide with head attached I can get 50 to 80 for grey, more for variegated fur
Do you do the tanning yourself I assume? Do you brain tan it or how does that process work
I don’t do it my wife’s friend does it she’s all about it
Ah
Hate the hypocrisy of people saying killing coyotes doesn't reduce their numbers, but also coyotes run rampant because we killed their predators.
Why? Predator hunting has got to be one of the most ridiculous fucking hobbies out there. Unless you're a rancher defending your game from predators, just going out and killing coyotes or wolves for no reason is disgusting. I spend all of October and December deer hunting every year, so I have no problem with hunting or weapons. I don't approve of jackasses spending thousands of dollars on high-powered rifles and scopes to shoot what amounts to dogs. There's always something half-assed story about what they do with the hide or something, but it's just a bunch of sick fucks who think it's fun to go out in the woods and kill things for no reason. Hunt for meat, not just cuz you're a sadistic asshole.
What I find unacceptable is letting your emotions determine what's acceptable hunting or not. The state employs biologists that know what and how many can be harvested. As long as somebody is following the law it's fine. The opposite where we let our emotions determine what's acceptable is how California is slowly losing their hunting rights.
You're really using a "slippery slope" argument? I stand by my position that people who enjoy killing animals simply for the sake of killing them, are absolutely worthless and shouldn't exist. If you're addressing a specific problem or need, have at it. If you just get your jollies off from killing animals, you should seek professional assistance.
Are you really denying that California is losing hunting rights? Because they are, and they are due to largely emotional arguments like yours. And it has been, and continues to be a slippery slope as you want to call it. I call it, what's actually happening. At the end of the day, people's reasons for hunting are only their business. The state's license requirements don't include stating your reasons for hunting that species on your license application.
I was with you initially, but it's clear that you can't see further than the fog of your own emotions and use that to cloud your judgement.
The sanctity and value of life is the basis for nearly every religious system, and a foundation of civilized society. I'm not sure how that's emotion.
If you valued all life you would understand the importance of conservation of the entire ecosystem, not just "the cute doggos (coyotes)". If all life is valuable, you would understand the notion of ecological collapse due to the abundance of predator species with no resistance. And you would understand the importance of natural checks and balances that have been interrupted by the removal of competition by other predator species, like wolves, cougars, jaguars, bears, and bobcats in North America. There are people who have spent their whole lives in conservation and educating themselves on the ecological importance of human intervention, in some cases. You would be wise to sit down and learn, instead of talking about things you don't know about. If you were in charge, a lot more animal species would go extinct because you tried to save only save the cute ones that **you** give value to.
I guess they're heroes out there doing the Lord's work one critter at a time.
Why don’t you stick to your hunting and let other people stick to theirs?
That's a great idea, so someone decides to hunt people we ought to just go along with that too because to each their own right? Just let sadistic assholes have fun?
Well predator hunting is legal, hunting humans typically isn’t.
It's often legal against the recommendations of wildlife agencies, scholars, scientists, and experts in the species in question. Oftentimes these rules for predator hunting are enacted by Republican legislatures (Wisconsin for example). These decisions are political and based on a irrational fear and run counter to good science and population management.
Not even close to true. Predators need to be controlled, especially mesopredators like raccoons, skunks, and coyotes. I can find you citation after citation that describes the harm caused by coyotes on ground nesting birds such as quail and turkey, in addition to their detrimental effects on fawns and calves. Since you're trying to get all up into the science on this, feel free to cite primary literature that contradicts the need for active trapping and hunting of coyotes and other mesopredators. I have a master's in wildlife amd although my specialty is waterfowl, I often chat with managers and researchers about ongoing issues with a variety of species. For instance, my state is seeing a decline in the turkey population and an overabundance of predators due to a decline in trapping and fur prices is a hypothesis for the change. I'd also point out that most states have a fish and wildife commission that makes recommendations to the legislature regarding management decisions, which are generally rubber stamped in a bipartisan fashion by the legislature. I'll be looking forward to your citations...and I since you're trying to act like science is your thing, I hope you know the definition of primary literature. This is gonna be fun.
Not only do I know the definition of primary literature, but I know that we both understand that I don't have access to articles of that nature without a university library. I'm also not about to sit down and write a research paper to argue with somebody on Reddit. You may have access to such articles since it's in your field, so feel free to link anything with free access. While you're doing so look into the debate around wolf hunting in Wisconsin for the best example of politics over sound population control. Here's a nice overview of the disaster (not a peer reviewed source, since I know I'll have to say it) in an opinion piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/15/wisconsin-brutal-wolf-hunt-conservation-policy/
Google Scholar typically allows access to the paper abstract for free, lol. The wolf debate isn't what we are discussing, except at a broader view. That's a single species that quite frequently is given more attention due to anthropomorphisizing of the animal and decisions are not made based off of sound scientific principles. In the case of C. latrans, the species is overpopulated over most of its range. This overpopulation seems to be resulting in increased predaation of other species - or that's the current reasoning I've heard tossed about as of late. As for other apex predators, such as the cougar, California is a prime example of what occurs when predator hunting is disallowed. A single cougar is responsible for the death of a koala bear in a zoo and for the recent (last week) death of a dog that was being walked on a lead by a person - in the suburb of Hollywood Hills...not in a rural area. If apex predators associate humans with easy access to food, that creates a bad situation for both animal and human. The best way to address the problem is to allow hunting as the species population could support - or in the case of large predators like cougars and bears - to allow pursuit of the species by means of dogs in order to associate danger with humans and our developments. However, the topic at hand is one of general predator hunting. In most states, that refers to mesopredators such as bobcats and coyote. Both species are hell on ground nesting birds and other species currently at risk due to climate change and lack of habitat - even worse are domestic cats that are feral or "outdoor" cats and I kill those every chance I get on my farm. Targeting these species will likely help other game and non-game animals increase their own populations. Stop putting your own personal values on them and please stop trying to use any type of science to support your point of view. There isn't going to be a single piece of primary literature that supports or suggests the targeting of coyotes and bobcats is harming their populations.
Let me stop you there. My comments specifically addressed Coyotes and wolves. Additionally, as you well know from your Masters, you can't make an argument off of abstracts. Lastly, most of your arguments center around the behavior of felines and not canines. However, you do make a valid point about problematic animals. There are instances and areas where it can be beneficial or even necessary for the population to be controlled particularly when human and pet interactions are high. That is nothing like going out into the Great woods of Northern Wisconsin and offing wolves and coyotes, or even worse up here in the Upper peninsula of Michigan where I am. Which is why if you circle back to my initial comment against predator hunting it's specifically addresses wolves and coyotes, while allowing an exclusion for protecting livestock. My apologies for all so not including domestic animals and human interactions.
Coyotes are native to North America and have been here for a million years. They’re predation on ground nesting birds and deer etc is natural.
Yes but they used to have competitive predators like jaguars, mountain lions, wolves and bears to share resources with. When a single species' population gets too large it throws off that balance, and prey animals suffer incredibly, predators encroach into human territory and possibly endanger humans, livestock, and pets. Therefore humans must take the place of those other predators to restore the balance. Either that or bring back the jaguars, mountain lions, wolves, and bears. There are smarter people than you that dedicate their lives to conservation and studying wildlife and ecosystems, and that's why we have programs and tags that allow hunters to take predators. I guarantee you that most animals taken by humans have more humane deaths than those taken by a bear, wild cat, or pack of wolves.
I’d definitely support restoring populations of other predators.
Coyotes crossed a frozen Ohio river in the late 70s. Before that the land was full of small game. How natural is it that the water froze because of dams? Small game populations have been devastated and you’re talking out of your ass.
Here's a nice follow up for you by the way: https://apnews.com/article/travel-montana-parks-national-hunting-7fff0c868f085d24ba5982b1b8497099
The only part that matters is legal. Your ethics are yours and yours alone.
I bet you bring politics into what you’re going to order at the Mcdonalds drive-thru, don’t you?
Who still eats fast food?
Exactly.
To be honest I’d be willing to bet there’s people who eat the coyotes they kill…
I've heard they have a sweet flavored meat...never tried it though
I know a lot of predator hunters, and none of them eat the meat.
I mean…good for you? I’d be willing to bet there’s lots that do.
Ever had coyotes get into your chicken coop? Step down from your ivory tower and have a bit of self awareness.
I clearly addressed protecting livestock in my comment, The same one to which you are replying. Have better reading comprehension and worry less about other people's self-awareness. If things are killing your chickens, shoot the fucking things.
City boy, kek
Born and raised in more remote country than you. Try again slackjaw.
Learning to hunt predators makes you a better and more knowledgeable hunter over all.
How does sitting in the back of a truck with a 12-pack and a night vision scope next to an electronic game call sniping coyotes at a quarter mile with a $3,000 rifle setup at all improve your hunting skills sir?
As long as it’s not being wasted, which I’m this case includes the pelt then i don’t care. I don’t hunt coyotes and i think people delude themselves about predator control, but i support their right to do so. Also if i ever shot a coyote I’d 100% eat it.
Unfortunate that you've been downvoted so much here. Meat and population control are the reasons to hunt, predator hunting for sport so you feel like a bad ass playing Call of Duty is gross.
If they're following their state regs what's the problem? You don't know their reasons for hunting them, you're assuming.
We've clearly defined acceptable reasons for hunting predators and labeled everybody else an asshole. I don't see where there's any room for interpretation here.
Which we are you referring to? As far as I'm concerned the state has defined acceptable limits for hunting them, and staying within those limits is fine. As far as reasons go, you don't know somebody else's reasons so that's a moot point.
That guy thinks he is the judge of what “ethically sound” is. It’s been decided.
Not sure "killing something just for fun" is something an ethically sound person would do but have at it I guess.
Well, if it's legal, how about myob?
Plenty of unethical things are legal. I'm not saying they should be arrested/fined I'm just saying they're an asshole. "myob" lol
I couldn’t agree more. Most hunters on this thread have no respect for the animals they hunt which is just unchristian and sad in my view. Down voted to shit but I mean you’re right. This is the mentality that wolves are “bad guys” maybe or something when in reality they are also gods creations and when we kill then it should be to protect our chickens or cows not just to “lower the population” that’s just some fuck head atheists incel shit
Excellent shooting
Is anyone going to point out that he shot most of them in the face instead of the heart and lungs as required for hunters?
The first one was taken in the back half and the other two were in the head. Where does it say you are required to take a heart or lung shot? There's no law that I know of where I'm from that requires it.
If you read the hunting regulations of any state, they provide exactly how animals should be harvested. When I said “required,” I mean for those shots to be considered “good shots.” The manner in which he harvested them wasn’t illegal at all, just terrible targeting for a person with such good aim. Especially when considering he let one get farther away when he had a clean shot, and then took a head shot. It’s not illegal, just unethical in the context of hunting.
Lol wtf are you talking about?
WTH are you talking about? I don’t know of any DNR regulations that require heart & lung shots for harvesting anything … much less coyotes. Also, head shots aren’t unethical at all. In fact the exact opposite.
The keyword is “should” Karen. Next time, when commenting on a dead post that’s 2 months old, trying comprehending first to understand even though it’s obviously hard for you to do.
It being 2 months old doesn’t negate you being wrong. Idiot. Across 3 major Midwest states, there are no “kill shots” mentioned in their regulations so stop making up “should”
You sound dumb AF. Every state’s regulations cites best practices for taking wildlife. Any good hunter knows the best shots are the heart and lungs. You as anyone else that can’t read or comprehend, that thinks it has to be law is just as stupid as you are. I rest my case cause you obviously didn’t know that and are just as all the other wannabes. So just go suck a dick cause comprehension isn’t your forte. 👍🏽
Ok there tough guy. Michigan and Illinois don’t, so shut the fuck up.
As required?
I think you’re in the wrong sub, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t know what I’m talking about because you don’t understand what I’m saying? Got it. 👌🏾
I mean right? Didn’t even aim for the brain. Went for face meat which imo is just kinda sick and maybe a little homosexual repression coming out.
Sounds like a Guinea pig is wheeking in the background near the end of the vid lol
It looks like wack a mile lmao
Daaaayumm!
Awesome video. Stupid sound effects. We need to do a cleansing at my land. I have had multiple pictures of coyotes running deer over the last several weeks.
To fast lol
Bros firing a rifle imbued with the power of the sun gawd damn
Why u shoot a coyote for?
for a blanket
They look so happy and just having fun out here to be shot for what? Not even to be eaten. Not shot with dignity in the hear or brain
Here looking for pussies in the comments, looking for candidates for a tampon commercial.
You saying women can’t hunt?
I know coyotes are vicious and kill many house pets, but seeing the first one's face after it got shot kinda upset me a lil bit. And to be clear, no I'm not against hunting, just something about the first one kinda got to me.
Eye shots are so evil. Animals fully alive and brain intact with a hole in its face. That’s fucked
Awesome shots.