Re: Somewhat OT rewquest for information: Predation upon foxes/coyotes


Robin Levett wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
> >
> > Robin Levett wrote:
> >> I am responding to an assertion that, given the lack of natural predators
> >> to the fox in the British Isles, human hunting of foxes provides Vulpes
> >> vulpes
> >> with what is described as a "welfare advantage". The full assertion is:-
> >>
> >> "Quarry species in developed countries, their natural predators having
> >> long since been eliminated, actually benefit in welfare terms from the
> >> conservation and targeted control operated over many centuries of
> >> legitimate hunting."
> >>
> >> My first-up response is that the question of natural predators is
> >> essentially irrelevant. The larger and more powerful predators that used
> >> to inhabit the UK, the bear and the wolf, wouldn't have "predated upon"
> >> the fox - the fox would simply stay out of the larger predator's way
> >> where food was concerned - and would have had little effect upon the
> >> fox's well-being.
> >> Is this the case in the States? Being hunted, however, imposes stresses
> >> upon a predator that it in its "natural" environment (ie absent human
> >> hunting) it doesn't meet.
> >>
> >> What is the evidence upon each of these points; am I right? Again, does
> >> anyone know of any studies of the effects of human hunting upon predator
> >> populations, fox or otherwise (apart from, say, outright extinction such
> >> as happened to bear and wolf)?
> >>
> >
> > One of the explanations for the coyote's rise in the US is the
> > decimation of the wolf population. Wolves apparently kill coyotes
> > whenever they get the chance. They do have to catch them first, but
> > pups in the dens are probably the usual kill.
>
> Does this also apply to foxes? I can see that coyotes, being substantially
> larger than foxes, are more of a direct competitor to wolves, but foxes are
> unlikely to be so?

I believe that this is the case for foxes in the artic that compete
with wolves. It has been a long time since I took wildlife biology.
The top predators will kill just about anything that they can catch.
They coexist, but I'd expect that there would be a larger fox
population if there were no wolves. A large portion of the wolf diet
in that region is rodents.

The diets of predators will surprise you sometimes. I remember one
study where they wanted to know if the cats on the Galapagos islands
were a threat to the iguanas and found that most of the cats diet was
grasshoppers.

Ron Okimoto

>
> >
> > Because of their relatively lower numbers, predators are about the only
> > animals that sports hunting seems to be able to keep the numbers in
> > check. Animals with larger populations need habitat loss or commercial
> > hunting to kill them off. Just look at the deer populations of the US.
> > Hunters can't make a dent in the overpopulation problem. I don't know
> > if enough foxes are hunted to make a difference. Their populations are
> > probably controled by simple cycles. If there are too many foxes they
> > don't have enough to eat and pretty soon there aren't as many foxes.
> > When the game returns the fox numbers increase. Boom and bust are the
> > usual "balance" of nature schemes.
>
> That was my understanding.
>
> --
> Robin Levett
> rlevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
> "There is much consistency in what I say if you just don't look too
> close :-)" (Charlie Wagner, talk.origins)

.

Relevant Pages