This is topic ADC on the Dark Continent in forum Predator forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001112

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on November 13, 2008, 04:28 PM:
 
Here is a link that I think a few of you will find interesting. http://www.jaracal.com/

This is my friend Hein Funcks web sight from South Africa. He has a tremendous amount of night calling experience.

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by onecoyote (Member # 129) on November 13, 2008, 06:55 PM:
 
I'll never make it to the dark continent to meet your friend, he sure has an interesting web site, thanks for sharing.
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on November 13, 2008, 07:17 PM:
 
Yes it is a unique and interesting sight, but so is Hein. LOL I don’t know of anyone else that is as committed to predator calling as he is. To make a living by calling problem jackal and caracal is fascinating. It goes with out saying that he knows his stuff. LOL Oh ya, the man can shoot too. LOL

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by Paul Melching (Member # 885) on November 14, 2008, 03:54 AM:
 
Thanks for the link Q
very cool website!
 

---

Posted by Randy Roede (Member # 1273) on November 16, 2008, 07:28 AM:
 
Q. one of my ranchers had a young man who was from South Africa helping him on the ranch for the summer.

He worked on a ranch, I guess that is what they call it there, that raised sheep. He was very interested in what I was doing with coyote control and we had a very interesting visit on the prairie about the similarities.

What suprised me was that snares and traps were not used as much. Or a least from what i heard from this guy. I gave him a dozen of my snares to take back and use. A crash course in snaring crawl unders etc. on the prairie.

It sounded like they were about 20 years behind in trapping equipment etc. Sounded like those small bobcat like creatures were awful hard on sheep, and the fence crawl unders etc. for the jackals was a full time battle. The shear miles of fence he stated was overwhelming. Percentages of losses were astounding also. Wish I could remember exactly but it was very high compared to numbers here.

He really liked the WT and was an avid caller but again it seemed like they were a bit simpler in their way of doing things. Didn't sound like there was a lot of other callers anywhere but the guys working the ranch. It would be interesting to spend sometime there on a working ranch.
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on November 16, 2008, 09:57 AM:
 
There are a few guys over there that I am aware of that are pretty sharp about trapping but not many. Two problems about trapping and snaring. First it is your access. South Africa I think is one large rock pile that somehow grows grass. LOL There are very few two tracks on any given ranch. Access is very limited if you plan on trapping out of a truck. The second problem is non-target animals. Fence snaring in most all areas is out all together. You will catch springhare, steenbok, duiker, cape fox, bat-eared fox, aardwolves, warthogs and African wild cats along with a few other critters before you catch a jackal. Lol Even if you do not catch some of these animals them and the rabbits will have you resetting all of your snares every day.

Trapping is nearly as bad but you can be much more target specific using footholds. There is no province or government funded ADC programs of any kind so the farmers are on their own. Driven hunts and some spotlighting use to be the go too method for killing jackal but once calling was introduced that all changed. Hein told me that the farmers use to brag about how far they have shot jackals before but now they like to brag about how close they got them in. LOL

Jackal and caracal are Africa’s version of our coyote and bobcat. The black back jackals are about 15% smaller than our western coyote and I would say that a mature Caracal, will on average, weigh more than our bobcats.

I haven’t been exposed to the trapping end of it in SA other than from Heins tracker Thabo. He does well but I think you are right about them being behind on trapping equipment and modern techniques. The techniques, equipment and opportunities are just not there for them. You also must remember that Gas, trucks, truck parts cost much more over there than they do here and there income is much lower than ours. .

Calling on the other hand is a different deal. Calling is 100% species specific and if the predators have not been harassed to much it will continue to be the most cost effective way to control losses. By reading on the Internet you know as well as anyone that people struggle with calling and here in America we have access to the latest and greatest hunting equipment on the planet. You can get much of the same equipment in the RSA also but it is an expensive and time-consuming process.

Hein has some very nice equipment but he also has to make do with what he has in some cases. As far as technique goes there is none better that I am aware of. In my situation I don’t do a lot of things that he does when calling because it is much easier for me to just move on and try to find more cooperative coyotes.

In Heins situation you have to look at it differently. When you are confined to one ranch and your income is determined on a per jackal/caracal basis I would have to change my ways or starve and it is that simple.

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on November 16, 2008, 10:28 AM:
 
Yeah, in some ways, your buddy is much to be envied. I would very much like to shoot the shit with him, some time. I read everything on his website, and agree with (like) 95% of it. It's that 5% that intrigues me.

I know that supressors are legal over there, don't know exactly how much it would assist in the hunt itself, but if hunting close to the farms, I suppose the multiples would be a little easier to come by, especially hunting alone, as he does.

One of the biggest disappointments when I was there with Lochi was in not getting a caracal. His buddy Piet told me that he had killed about 40 leopards. He has the game meat concession at Krugger National Park, culled animals.

Now, if I could set up a decent hunting rig over there, I'm sure the jackals would love to cooperate. For Lochi, he does the best he can, but his vehicle is a far cry from a California Rig.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on November 16, 2008, 01:06 PM:
 
The biggest benefit of suppressors is because you do not need ear protection when you use them. There are electric earmuffs that will enhance your hearing and cut off when the sound reaches a certain decibel. These are nice but there failing is that they are non-directional. In other words you can hear well and protect your hearing well but when you hear the jackals howl you do not know what direction they are coming from. For the way that Hein calls you need to know where the jackal are because if they are down wind he will not call to them until he can work around and get up a favorable wind. That I think is the primary reason they like to use suppressors over there.

I agree that a good California rig would be a beautiful fit in South Africa. I think Hein and others like the chair set up to suit their individual needs. Hein may have a farmer or a black driving for him but that is usually it. The scope mounted light and the ability to easily and continually spin with out tangling up cords is a tremendous help when you are hunting alone.

Hein has just finished writing a book on calling the Black Back jackal and Caracal. I will not have my hands on it until next Friday. It has not hit the shelves yet but I am getting a sneak peak via e-mail. I am not sure how a book of this kind would sell in the US but I am sure there will be some available in the future.

Good hunting.
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on November 30, 2008, 12:37 PM:
 
Q - I just joined like Leonard said and thanks for the introduction, I think. I read through some of the stuff and find it really interesting.

Hi Leonard
LB “I would very much like to shoot the shit with him, some time.”
Only found this site now that Quinton has mention it and the feeling is mutual. I see you have hunted with Lochi and it is a pity you did not get the caracal. Just to make you jealous this German client shot the biggest cat I have ever seen on a hunt I guided in May this year. The guy is 6 feet tall. He shot 3 jackal and 2 caracal in 4 nights hunting, could have many more jackal but he was unfamiliar with night hunting techniques.


The caracal population is on the increase as more and more game ranches pop-up. So you might get lucky next time you come over.

LB “I know that supressors are legal over there, don't know exactly how much it would assist in the hunt itself, but if hunting close to the farms, I suppose the multiples would be a little easier to come by, especially hunting alone, as he does”.
The supressor is only used to protect my own ears. I have hunted with a 25-06, fitted with a mussle-brake and can’t say that I have had more success now. It does help with a bit of a breeze. Then the jackal does not know from which direction the shot came. Ditto on Q’s last remarks.

Hi Randy Roede
RR “Percentages of losses were astounding also. Wish I could remember exactly but it was very high compared to numbers here”
Yes losses can run as high as 40% in some cases but the average is about 20%. I found very few ranchers who know the real numbers on predation. They only start counting the losses after they docked the sheep. The losses before that are not counted and I know that most of the losses will actually occur in that timeframe. I worked for a guy that owned about 20 000 head of sheep and his losses were about 1500 – 2500 lambs a season. I wanted to work on a full time contract but he did not want to make the initial money outlay. I know the predation can be brought to less than 2% if you work the place over for a period of two to three years. Big place, about 175 000 acres. They contracted me for a week at a time just to hit the problem areas. So there is always an influx of new jackals to the area. Being paid by the numbered killed, I did not really mind although I did mention the fact to him. H
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on November 30, 2008, 01:34 PM:
 
Welcome to The New Huntmasters, hein. Glad to have you on board.

That's a nice cat. He can take it home and we can't, is that how it works?

Good hunting. LB

[ December 01, 2008, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on November 30, 2008, 08:07 PM:
 
Thanks Leonard
Nope, what you shoot you can take home. No problem, but with cats there is a bit of luck involved. Some are to dumb, unpredictable, don't care or just to lazy to react to a call. That is why I love K9's.
Take care and good hunting.
Hein
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 01, 2008, 09:44 AM:
 
Okay, thanks, Hein. I was thinking of CITES, I assumed there was some restriction on importation?

Okay, here is my compiled list of quotes from your website that I found interesting, curious or mildly disagreed.

quote:

---

One can call at a maximum of two stands in the morning and one in the afternoon. You will be able to make 5-6 stands per night.

---

quote:

---

I like to go out when there is a light breeze of no more than 15 km/h and some moonlight.

---

quote:

---

You do not want to move more than 2,3 km from the previous stand.

---

quote:

---

The best time to go calling is a day or two before a storm, presumably because they realize that they will not be able to hunt for a while.

---

In my experience, this is not consistantly productive, at all. Sometimes yes and often times, no. Sporatic, four hours of activity and ten hours of dead time. The reverse, however, is that I have a lot of confidence in hunting right after a weatherfront moves through an area. (edit) barometric pressure: I think a falling barometer is unpredictable, but the high pressure following a storm is a stimulation on the predator.

So, don't look at my observations as picking a fight or oneupsmanship, I am just interested in clarification and the chance to learn similarities and differences in what works for you versus what I see. In fact, your presentation is very understandable and helpful and I can't criticize any part of it, since it obviously works for you.

Good hunting. LB

[ December 01, 2008, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by Locohead (Member # 15) on December 01, 2008, 04:29 PM:
 
Hello, Hein, Welcome! Hope to see lots of pictures from your hunts. Those caracal are mighty gorgeous looking critters!!! Hope to see you around often!
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 01, 2008, 04:36 PM:
 
Hi Leonard, thanks for the questions and sorry that the answer is so long.
Caracals are on cites 2. So I get the permit you shoot it, you take it home. Cites 1(leopard etc.) you need to get the permit from your F&W first then I apply for the permit. I do not get the permit to long a story - Keep to cites 2.

Calling times:
All the information on the website should be seen out of an ADC viewpoint, where people are sheep ranching and we have fewer predators than in other areas. Jackals and caracals only start to move late afternoon and go and hide early mornings. If you move more north in our country, or to other areas where there are a lot of game ranches and cattle ranches you should be able to call them more often during the day. Secondly we do not have the adverse weather conditions you guys have. Hardly any snow or prolonged bad weather systems. It is hot and dry in the summer and even in winter it is fairly mild. Food is in abundance and no need for them to stay out to long to get fed. Jackals will not touch a road kill in most sheep ranching areas and they do not even come back to a lamb kill. They kill a new one every time.
The time spend on stands will vary, depending what your objective is. I have hunted areas where jackals are so thick that spending more than seven minutes on a stand is a waste of time. Your chance of getting into new ones on the next stand is greater that calling ones in from far. In ADC we do not have that privilege, you might have to search for only one. If I hear a jackal I usually work that jackal till it is killed or it disappeared. I have spend 7 hours just to kill one female, got her male at 20h00 and shot her eventually at 03h00. I have spend many a time 2-3 hours on a jackal. Going after the clever ones you need time, but it is in situations like that, you get to know their behaviors and how to outsmart them. I teach a lot of ranchers and because jackals are so few and far between they need to do their groundwork before going out. Getting to know where the territories are is very important. That can be difficult at times, but once you have the spot you need to spend time there. No need to go elsewhere they are there you just need to get them in. By spending that much time on a stand you will usually call any interested jackal within a mile. I have seen jackals coming in from about a mile out.(saw their tracks in the two track we came in when we left the area the same way out. Interesting what a GPS can show you, now I can’t work without the damn thing. I plot every stand and make a mental note how far from the previous stand I picked up jackals either coming in or responding vocally. How far the human (not hunter) ear can hear a howl is also debatable (a lot of variables playing a role), but I have found that it is hard to hear a jackal further than 1.6 km (just under a mile). Most people think because they can hear dogs barking a 2-3 miles out you will be able to hear a jackal that far too. I can count on my one hand the jackals that were further than 1 mile. All others were, shot or shot at, within that radius of just under a mile. I found most of them around the ¾ of a mile mark. By moving further than 2.3 km you will move outside that radius to be able to hear jackal if you have indeed moved passed them.

Moonlight:
I now hunt from about 5 days after full moon to about half moon (7 days before full moon.) (have to rest as well you know) If there is a lot of cover I have had tremendous success even on full moon. You do feel vulnerable out there seeing almost everything with the naked eye and thinking man what am I doing out here. But pure workload pressure made us work on moonlit nights. I think we were as surprised as most people on the success. I have seen many old, cunning and educated jackals that got shot in moonlight nights that we could not get on dark moon. Might be something with the light intensity not so bright on a full moon night. I have the best reaction 3 to 7 days after new moon (dark moon). That is when there is only a bit of light till about 23h00. After that dark again. It seems like they like to move a lot with the bit of moonlight available to them. Sky lining is a huge problem that people do not think about and I like to use mountains as a back drop or any thing dark, like a line of trees or whatever. You do not have to stand next to them, just don’t be sky lined. If you can stand close to bushes and see over it, that makes it perfect. Place the remote in the open and you take cover in the bushes. The remote does make a huge difference. With moon light I like to place the e-call 100-120 yards away.

Weather:
Like I said we do not have that much adverse weather. We (3 man ADC team working together in an area) did make notes on how many were called and on what type of night, barometric pressure, wind speed, wind direction temp etc.etc. All I can remember now is that there were a little bit better reaction just before (1-2 days) the storm and just after the storm (1-2 days). But still there need to be jackals or predators. To many variables to contest with to really be scientific about it. Might also be that when we did the write-ups we were into thicker jackal population at that specific times. I will not argue any other findings. Some nights are unexplainable dead, no movement nothing, wish I had a cure for that.

Any more questions please shoot, I will gladly share my experience not that I’m PAK yet . Just got back from a hunt, too. Shot 5 jacks in two hours and then a thunder storm chased me home, shot 21 jacks and 3 caracal the last 3 and a half hunting nights. Pity I had all the fun alone. Had to change a flat in the storm too. All in all the hunt was better than the bad that happened. Had a chance to write this too.
Take care and good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 01, 2008, 04:50 PM:
 

quote:

---

Place the remote in the open and you take cover in the bushes. The remote does make a huge difference. With moon light I like to place the e-call 100-120 yards away.

---

Okay, now this is something Lochi was doing. He would walk out and put a decoy and the speaker quite a ways away from the vehicle.

I think I convinced him that the sound should be coming from the same place as where the spotlight is working? Otherwise, the jackal will be looking toward the sound and you might not see his eyes if he is some distance to the left or right. In other words, I prefer, (at night) to have the animal approach the vehicle rather than a remote caller.

Good hunting. LB

edit: forgot to mention; just walking out there, I think the sound of the footsteps and the possibility of spreading your scent further would discourage me from doing this? Plus, rattlesnakes at night, the less walking around in the bush, the better.

[ December 01, 2008, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 01, 2008, 04:54 PM:
 
Hi Locohead
Thanks, I like to read the stuff the guys write. I am new to this writing and reading but it is as addictive as calling. Already getting the look from the missus, sitting with my back to her facing the computer all the time. I’ll get some pics together and let you guys see the stuff.
Take care and good hunting

Hein
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 01, 2008, 05:16 PM:
 
LB
I have seen posts that people like to put the remote right at their calling position. I have found that their eyes are visible from all angles. It is only when they passed you directly from behind ( if you are facing the remote) on the way to the call that you will not see the reflection. I have seen this on many occasions, we do not shoot bat-eared foxes and they will run right passed you. Only once they have passed, you loose the reflection. As long as there is a small angle you see the eye. Also I station myself a bit downwind and to the side of the call. Most jackal will move to the down-wind side so they will actually be moving right towards you, but their attention is at the source of the sound. They don’t seem to associate you with the sound.

I agree with you on the walking part, I drive to the spot to put the remote out. I have seen a jackal hit that scent trail and departed quicker than it came in.
Good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on December 01, 2008, 05:39 PM:
 

quote:

---

I am new to this writing and reading but it is as addictive as calling.

---

quote:

---

Is anybody else reading Heins posts with a South African accent in their head or is it just me

---

quote:

---

Is anybody else reading Heins posts with a South African accent in their head or is it just me.

---

You guys are just insensitive bastards. LOL

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 01, 2008, 06:24 PM:
 
Geordie. You, of all people, should talk!

Hey, I caught that Okie game. Dang, just like high school, three downs and a score. Kickoff, three downs and another score!

Maintain

Good hunting. LB

edit:

quote:

---

You guys are just insensitive bastards. LOL

---

quote:

---

Is anybody else reading Heins posts with a South African accent in their head or is it just me.

---

I have to set my computer to American English in stead of African English. Just can't seem to find the correct button. LOL

Putting the remote call away from you

Just thought of something, but I might be wrong?
Light waves travel in straight lines, I do not think the eye lens can bend it, so if you have an 180º field of view, it means that any light that comes in, will also reflect on the retina from that angle. That is my assumption. But assume usually = ass out of u + me?
 

---

Posted by Joel Hughes (Member # 384) on December 02, 2008, 12:02 PM:
 
I was always told that you have to have the animal focused on the light to be able to see eyes reflecting. Now I know from experience that is just not true. I never once even considered putting the remote sound away from me at night. Then Quinton suggested it on a spot we wanted to call that wasn't very conducive to the "norm". Well what do you know? I say eyes the moment the fox topped the hill, the whole way as it made its way to 30 feet from the caller I had eyes, the whole time his eyes were facing the caller.

Before this, Quniton had suggested that I try it, but I always mumbled under my breathe that he must be full of crap. LOL Nope! It works and I have done it since then too.

Still, Leonard, you have a good point about walking out there, which is partly why I don't do it the majority of the time (that, and I'm just lazy and would rather stay in the truck LOL).

But, for those that have been told you can't see eyes unless the animal is looking directly at the light...you might try it before taking it as gospel.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2008, 01:08 PM:
 
Okay, that is a bit of a mischaracterization of the issue, at least in my view.

I know, with absolute certainty, that you can see the flash when a fox romps across a clearing, as described by Joel and Shaw. Not my first rodeo, I have done the same exact thing, for various reasons, like heavy brush all around the vehicle, but there is a clearing over yonder, etc. Not to be picky, but a coyote is a lot less likely to be wide eyed and bushy tailed, and frequently will purposely look away from a light source. NOT all the time, and not all coyotes, and it depends on the intensity of the light, but I will state catagorically, that there will be times when a coyote will not flash even when you are the source of the sound and also the light. I have seen times when I need to depend on body movement because they refuse to look at the light. Maybe it's like what Hein said about caracal, they close their eyes, or just look down, but they won't flash. The caveat is; you will probably log many hours between those times when they deliberately will not look at a light source.

Anyway, I can also see the ADC justifications, and the moonlight considerations in placing a caller away from the vehicle, but....in the type of predator hunting that I do at night, this solution is hardly ever needed, nor employed. I also notice that the claim is not that the eyes can be seen just as well as the more conventional situation where the sound is coming from the vehicle.

If I could figure out a way to "launch" a speaker fifty yards from the vehicle without a lot of trouble, I might do it once in a while? In the daytime, I do this fairly frequently; drop off a speaker on the side of the two track and then continue on down the road a ways. This keeps the scent to a minimum, and as we all know, the sound of a vehicle driven on a two track is a whole lot less startling than walking out fifty yards and walking back. Also less strenuous and quieter, especially on decomposed granite and dead leaves, for instance.

So, I have no problem with anyone's methods and I think it is worthwhile to discuss the pros and cons of these things. Somebody, somewhere may find value? And, in my humble opinion, that's what these forums are all about.

The other thing I would like to discuss, is (as I understand him?) Hein doesn't use a red light. He uses a dimmer. Nothing wrong with that, done properly. I used an amber lens for many years and thought it just as good as red, but it really isn't, especially with pressured coyotes. They can see the red light, make no mistake, but even with a fairly high intensity, they apparently do not feel threatened by it? I think white light is essential for identifying and shooting, at least 80% of the time, but there is no negative aspect to using a red or amber lens for working an animal into a shootable position.

Just a few of my half baked thoughts on these subjects. I welcome any and all input.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Joel Hughes (Member # 384) on December 02, 2008, 02:23 PM:
 
In no way was I implying this to be your first rodeo. Just as in no way am I suggesting that putting the sound away is more appropriate than keeping it at the light/shooter.

One topic here is, the animal doesn't have to look AT the light to get a reflection. I think some people who have not tried it believe that because that's what they've been told. Heck, it even makes sense if you think about that claim. The times I have tried it and called something in, the eyes never stopped shining. And the eyes were not looking AT me, as they were focused on the sound which was away from me. I could tell that by their approach and by observing through the scope. I am not going to say this is always the case. I never say always, and I don't have enough stands under my belt with this particular method to be so bold.

A separate topic you just brought up is how sometimes you don't get a reflection even when the sound is with you and the light. Anyone that has done much night hunting can think of times when they did not get a reflection at all. I wish I could explain that one. Just this weekend, I killed a coyote 20 yards from the truck. I first saw her at about 100 yards out. Never one time did I see a reflection. Only saw the coyote bobbing up and down all the way in. It obviously was looking at me and the light because I could see where she was looking prior to pulling the trigger. This has happened to me more than a handful of times. I always wonder, is there something different about that particular coyote's eyeballs or what? LOL I ran the light in the same manner as I always do, so I don't know how it could have been that. Just weird.

I will leave the red vs. white to someone else. Besides, I was enjoying the accent.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2008, 02:55 PM:
 
No prob Joel. I didn't take what you said as personal, at all. I was just saying that I have done it and I know the eyes shine quite well, when the caller is out in a remote location.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 02, 2008, 05:17 PM:
 
Hi LB
I was quite surprised to see a posting and viewpoint that you have to have the source of the light and the source of the sound from the same place. I have been doing it since I started out with the remote and can’t even remember how long ago that was. I do it every time I go out, I never even thought of not seeing an incoming eye. I try and use the advantage of being a bit of to the side and down-wind from the call to outsmart those jackal that will only work way down-wind or just to give you a better chance of not getting smelled at all. I think you have a better chance of loosing a clever jackal by getting winded than loosing one not seeing it, coming in. That is my honest opinion and I am not knocking your viewpoint at all. It has worked for me all this time and people can try it out. I have to say I now feel uncomfortable with the remote closer than 50 yards from me. Another advantage is that the sound is away from you and you can hear any vocal response from jackal so much better and you can pin-point the direction more accurately. In the end you have to have confidence in what you believe and in what you do.
Hein
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on December 02, 2008, 08:37 PM:
 
Some people really get cross ways when the subject of lighting gets brought up. I have adopted the white light with a dimmer and like it very much. There may be volumes of scientific evidence that will prove that coyotes or jackal do not see the shade of red very well but I still have a few questions.

I have read that predators are not afraid of red light. That may be true but why would they be afraid of any other color of light. White light is pure unfiltered light and is the most natural light there is. Coyotes see their world illuminated every day by white light. Just because they can see one spectrum of light better than another that does not automatically mean that they should be afraid of it.

I have read what is available about the subject but I keep returning to the same notion. And that is we should pay more attention to the intensity of the light rather than the color.

People like animals see colors differently that has been proven but this brings up a totally different set of questions. In the latest PX magazine an author states that coyotes cannot see the color green. AT ALL! Wouldn’t that make green the very best filter to use when night hunting? The old belief was that coyotes do not see red but in fact they do not see green. Well they don’t see green in the same way we see green but they must see something or they would never know that it was there right? LOL

Randy, Joel and I have conducted a triple blind scientific study of our own in TX. We used the white light technique and could tell conclusively by our post mortem inspections of a couple hundred predators that the white light works just fine. LOL

Another perk of the white light is the added range you are able to tag your coyotes or jackal at. I hope Hein finds the time to post video clips of a couple of weary jackal that got the surprise of their lives. One bit the dirt at 429 yards and the other at 471 yards. Obviously these shots are not common place but it was the use of unfiltered light that made them possible.

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2008, 10:34 PM:
 
All good points, Q. I don't disagree. A well handled white light can assist in killing a lot of animals. I have heard this stuff about green being better than amber or red. The Lightforce rep promotes it because he says that red is overused and the animals are wise to it, I think is his theory? What you aren't taking into account is that out here, we always have white light available, but find it a lot less spooky to hunt with red until the shot, under the white light. Very effective, especially on multiples. See here:



The red is a 150º fog light, not a spotlight. The other is an instanly available 100 watt aircraft landing light and it has a tight pencil beam.

edit: Quinton. I should point out that hunting (relatively) tame coyotes behind locked gates is a different situation than what we have out here. The Utah boys roll the highways with multiple white spotlights out of the back of a pickup and scare the bejabbers out of every coyote in the country. Making stands with a red light is a very valuable tool in this type of situation.

[ December 02, 2008, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2008, 10:46 PM:
 

quote:

---

that you have to have the source of the light and the source of the sound from the same place.

---

quote:

---

For those of you who keep up with Hein, you might be interested to know that he is in a battle for his livelihood.
CapeNature, the nature conservation authority in the Western Cape, is campaigning to stop all night-hunting, trapping, spotlighting, and predator calling for jackals and caracals in RSA.

---

Thanks for the concern. Just to put the facts right. South Africa has 9 Provinces of which the Western Cape is one. It is the most liberal and the greenies are putting so much pressure on CapeNature because of the high numbers of predators that are killed that they try to ban all calling, spotlighting, dog hunting and trapping in that province. It's border is about three hours drive from me. I do not hunt there, but I try and give the ranchers some facts to fight with. The meeting was held today but we still need to see what the final outcome is. I live in the Freestate in the middle of South Africa and we do not have any sort of ban here and neither does the other provinces except Kwa-Zulu Natal. Some of our conservation guys are callers themselves and like to brag about the numbers too.
Good hunting Hein
 

---

Posted by Bofire (Member # 221) on December 04, 2008, 05:51 PM:
 
I read in a news paper last week, maybe its true???
That in SA somewhere 79 farmers lost the farms they owned a while ago and they were given to other 'people'. I guess they went broke and a high court in SA gave the farms back to the original owners. I bet with some kind of big tax or something.
Do you know anything about this?
I am really enjoying reading about the hunting and other info. in this thread.
Carl

[ December 04, 2008, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Bofire ]
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 04, 2008, 08:16 PM:
 
Hi Bofire
First I would like to explain some terminology. In South Africa there is no difference between a farmer and a rancher. Whether you grow wheat or have cattle you are a farmer. Now to your Question. The government bought every single piece of land that were taken from the original farmers/ranchers and given to “the other people”. The prices paid were inflated by one and a half to two times the actual/market value. Other countries gave most of the moneys for those projects to SA. Unfortunately most of those farms/ranches went bankrupt, to many chiefs and no ******* to do the work. Some of those farms were actually bought back by the original owners.

Politically we are moving into a new era. The ANC were ruling with a two third majority. The party fired our president (Thabo Mbeki from the Xhosa nation) and elected a new one (Jacob Zuma, from the Zulu nation, There were such an internal struggle that several high profile members of the ANC broke away and started a new party, COPE (congress of the people). We believe it will bring a strong opposition if not in the long run oust the ANC.

So I have high hopes for SA, and to be honest not everything that happened in SA over the past 15 years were bad. Our nabour to the north, Zimbabwe, are really going down the drain. Robert Mugabe does not give in and people are dying like flies. No water, no food, no gas nothing and it was one of the countries with the best dangerous game hunting available. To bad.

Hope to see you guys here someday. Big game are plentiful and predators thick.

LB, I shot two caracal the night before last, you need to come over before I kill them all. LOL
Good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 05, 2008, 12:31 AM:
 
Yeah, Hein. You got me thinking. Maybe?

I know a little about what has been going on with the squatters and 24 hours, etc. I also was there when a Commando killed a black for stealing chickens, just down the road from Lochi's place. Those eight foot electric fences are some comfort. Boy, they sure like that "zinc" corregated steel roofing. Sure is too bad about Zimbabwai, I know some guys that canceled trips because of what's going on.

Hein, have you been to the states and have you hunted bobcat and coyote? I really felt that jackals were so much like coyotes, that I was calling them coyotes. Yeah, I'd sure like to take a nice tom caracal. I killed a fox, I think it was a cape fox? They are protected now?

Man, the worst part of hunting Africa is the plane ride. Two 10½ hour flights. Talk about Jet Lag!

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 05, 2008, 01:39 AM:
 
LB
Yes I was there in '99 and 2000, called and shot some coyotes, much easier to kill than jackal because they are bigger seriously! they are the same with the jackal, speaking Afrikaans and the coyote, American English. I saw one bobcat but could not get on him.
Yes, Cape Fox is now protected and how that one slipped through no one knows. We were so busy fighting to get jackal and caracal of the protected specie list that we did not focus on that one. Luckily they did not list the African wild cat.

quote:

---

Man, the worst part of hunting Africa is the plane ride. Two 10½ hour flights. Talk about Jet Lag!

---

You could take a boat, I think it only takes about a month to get here,
Really hope to see you here next year.
Good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Bofire (Member # 221) on December 05, 2008, 01:49 PM:
 
Thanks Jaracal, the best thing about the WEB is being able to talk, all over the world, to guys like you!!
Carl
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 08, 2008, 02:41 PM:
 
Hi Bofire
Yes it is nice talking to people with the same interest or mutual problems.

Quinton, The pressure you put me under!! Here is the reply I posted on PM.
In certain circumstances you need a light that can actually light up the target, especially call-shy or light shy animals over a long distance. I have found that jackals do get light shy even under a red light.
In the following video clip you can see two jackal coming to a call under the very dimmed white light. They were not further than 50 yards away.
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo190/jaracal/?action=view¤t=dimmer_429.flv
The female is the one that turned quickly when I turned up the light (light-shy) to shoot. I shot the male while he was still wondering why his mate departed so quickly. I did not see the female again till she hit the 400+ yards mark. There she gave me time enough to range a bush where she was running to (big mistake). I dialed in the numbers on the scope and by using a dimmer switch on a white light, turned up the intensity to full, and put the cross right on the body of the jackal that I could see through the scope. There is now way that you will be able to do that with a red light. I shot the female at 429 meters (472 yards).
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo190/jaracal/?action=view¤t=429_GPS.flv

The white light with a dimmer switch is the best of both worlds. You can dim the light intensity far lower than the red light but you have full white power at the turn of a knob or flick of a switch.

By hunting with a white light only, a lot of predators get frightened away. By hunting with a red light only, you loose a lot of predators that you cannot identify or make out the body over longer distances. The scopes you need to shoot over 200 yards with a red light are usually high priced with big objective lenses 50mm+ while the white light is a little more forgiving on the optics. All in all I think it takes a bit more skill to hunt with a white light and dimmer but it is far more effective than either red alone or white alone.
The following video demonstrates the correct way to use a dimmer.
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo190/jaracal/?action=view¤t=dim_x_2_tierplaas.flv
For those guys who start out or who's struggling to see with a red light you will be highly rewarded by trying out a white light fitted with a dimmer/rheostat

Good hunting
Hein

[ December 08, 2008, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Jaracal ]
 

---

Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on December 08, 2008, 03:52 PM:
 
Hein, Great footage. What was the sound used in the long range shot? Was that a jackel distress, or jackel pup? Kinda curious on their vocalizations.

Maintain, Geordie
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 08, 2008, 08:37 PM:
 
Hi Geordie
It is a 'where are you" kind of jackal howl. I have stopped hundreds of jackal with that when the distress or khi-yai does not work.
Good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 18, 2008, 10:16 AM:
 
I am trying to load a video from photobucket without the link to show we do some daycalling as well is there a way it will show up on the board. Good hunting
Hein
http://s374.photobucket.com/albums/oo190/jaracal/?action=view¤t=daycalling_double.flv

[ December 18, 2008, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Jaracal ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 18, 2008, 12:27 PM:
 
I watched it via the link, if that's what you mean? I am always amazed at how much they act like coyotes! Probably not in every detail, of course, like the vocals, but in many ways, they do.

That sound you are using to stop them. What do you call it? We generally use a "woof".

Good hunting. LB

[ December 18, 2008, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on December 18, 2008, 01:49 PM:
 
LB
It is a sound in their vocalization that I would almost say is a challenge or hey you!, I am not to sure but has learned it from a friend about 8 years ago. Before that I whistled, but man you do not get your lips right to whistle if they come charging in. The HA_HA is very effective and I have not found too many that will not stop to that sound. I would say the behaviour of jackals and coyotes are identical, except like you say for the vocalization. But I think they will have the same kind of howls in their own language like a lone howl, territorial howl, where are you, agressive challenge, not to sure what you are, etc. kind of jackal/coyote talk.
Good Hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Locohead (Member # 15) on December 18, 2008, 05:23 PM:
 
I really enjoyed those videos too. I noticed a great many similar sounds to the Prairie, lots of bird sounds, crickets, frogs only in greater numbers. Africa - WOW, I would just love to take a safari of any kind, shooting guns, cameras, or video. A beatiful place in my dreams...
 

---

Posted by Jeff Thomason (Member # 691) on January 20, 2009, 10:27 AM:
 
Hey guys, been a while... Here is a Jackal from Namibia. Our dimmer switch got broken on the way over. But we managed to kill a few without it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT1SK20kB1A
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on January 20, 2009, 12:47 PM:
 
Namibia would be a great place to hunt. I hear they support huge populations of jackal. I am sure you guys had a ball. When are you going back?

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by smithers (Member # 646) on January 20, 2009, 06:40 PM:
 
People like animals see colors differently that has been proven but this brings up a totally different set of questions. In the latest PX magazine an author states that coyotes cannot see the color green. AT ALL! Wouldn’t that make green the very best filter to use when night hunting? The old belief was that coyotes do not see red but in fact they do not see green. Well they don’t see green in the same way we see green but they must see something or they would never know that it was there right? LOL

Q, the author did state that coyotes don't see the color green as we see it but to them the green light appears to be white, not green. So, in the end, using a green light would be exactly the same as using a white light for coyotes. FWIW...
I like to use a green light, personally, because it preserves my own night vision better than white and I can't see shit using a red light.

[ January 20, 2009, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: smithers ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on January 20, 2009, 07:49 PM:
 
Now, how in the hell did some dipshit figure out that coyotes can't see green? If it's the same guy that wrote a couple articles about lights a while ago, he's an idiot. They need to impound his keyboard.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Kokopelli (Member # 633) on January 21, 2009, 07:02 AM:
 
Isn't that the same guy who in Part 1 of that article stated something to the effect that coyotes are somewhat nearsighted?? I haven't bothered to read Part 2 yet.....had to organize my sock drawer.
 

---

Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on January 21, 2009, 01:04 PM:
 
Yea I thought the same thing when I read the article Leonard.From what I understood from the article green looks like white to a coyote(I could be mistaken but that's what it sounded like to me).If so I can't believe it because I have hunted with a green carhart coat for years and had coyotes right on top of me,you'd think with his theory i'd stick out like a sore thumb.lol

Good Hunting Chad
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on January 21, 2009, 05:36 PM:
 

quote:

---

Now, how in the hell did some dipshit figure out that coyotes can't see green? If it's the same guy that wrote a couple articles about lights a while ago, he's an idiot. They need to impound his keyboard.

---

quote:

---

Given Leonard's well-known dislike for science, and the often stated belief that all science is flawed and of no real value except to generate more funding for continued study and personal profiteering on the part of the researchers involved

---

It's rediculous to try and put words in my mouth, Lance. That is not even close to my personal opinion concerning scientific whores, as opposed to objective & legitimate science. Yes, there is a lot of sucking the government teat, and I could easily make the charge that Cdog has never seen a scientific "study" with which he disagreed? Would that be a fair statement?

But look. I think it is well known that there is a lot of data out there in the public sector that says almost all higher life forms have varying degrees of monochromic vision, the exception being some birds and I forget what else? BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT COYOTES DO NOT "SEE" GREEN! They may not recognize (that) color the same as a human does, but they can distinguish green and red. That's all I had to go on. Somebody says that there is an article in PX where somebody claims that coyotes can't see green. Sorry, I can't swallow that bullshit, even if it doesn't have qualifications. Hey, I'm not even sure that Lance "sees" green? Aside from the question of what shades of color that coyotes see, what does this mean? Are green coats invisible to a coyote? Is that what the author intends to convey? No, he means that they MAY see a shade of charcoal or something similiar but is this helpful for the average dipshit or not? It is meaningless, knowing as we do that these animals may not have the advantage of seeing the full spectrum of colors. For all we know, when he sees a green coat, maybe it appears blue or purple, but what does it matter? They still see it.

I'm colorblind. Do you think that I can't see red, or green? If you do, you would be very much mistaken. The assumption that colorblindness means that an individual sees the world in shades of gray is not true. It is different for each and every individual. For me, as an example, I have a little difficulty distinguishing a few pastel shades of violet and (guess what) gray. The color doesn't disappear, it is just difficult to distinguish side by side, like a pattern in a field of random dots. But, if you think that you would be invisible to me by dressing in a violet coat, you got another think coming.

Based on your clarification, (which is appreciated), I can see that what the guy says is reasonable but hardly revolutionary; basically regurgatating what many others have said previously. It makes no practical difference if coyotes see orange as yellow and green as charcoal(?) We already know that they see movement so what really arewe supposed to gain from this article, from a practical application? Not a lot, so far. What else you got?

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Locohead (Member # 15) on January 21, 2009, 08:56 PM:
 
Leonard,

You've got to rent the movie, "Expelled" by Ben Stein the comedian. Its enjoyable. His research reveals how good solid science is constantly rejected by all the big dogs in the Science community because the evidence brought forth doesn't fit the agenda of the big dogs. I ejoyed the movie even though it was boring. LOL I enjoyed the good solid information exposed.

Sorry for being a bit off topic, Lance made me think of it!
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on January 21, 2009, 10:07 PM:
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given Leonard's well-known dislike for science, and the often stated belief that all science is flawed and of no real value except to generate more funding for continued study and personal profiteering on the part of the researchers involved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still can't believe you said that, Lance! I always gave you a little more credit.

It's charlatans feeding us political bullshit that I object to. Just as in any group, there will be crusaders that start out with a preconceived concept and attempt to prove their point by emphasizing favorable data and ignoring everything that does not agree with what they are trying to prove. This is complete fraud and there are a lot of people with a degree that are very biased and can't be objective.

Item. Is there GLOBAL WARMING, or not? Seems that the data doesn't support the convictions made by many that are sipping the Koolaid. So, is this GLOBAL WARMING man made? Can man change the climate? Are carbon credits a sick joke? Does the earth experience routime cycles of warming trends, or not? Some of these OBJECTIVE shills (excuse me, I meant scientists) are determined to force everybody to do something because "it could be too late".

Pony up specious data, like 300 scientists have reached a consensus. Really? Now instead of irrefutable proof, we have a show of hands. Do we run around inplementing half baked solutions based on questionable data from even more questionable COMPUTER MODELS?

So, yes, I guess I have a hard on for sloppy research and suspicious green motives? I mean, I won't even mention the snail darter, the trona pupfish and the spotted owl. Nor the endangered wolves and polar bears. There is a lot of "research" by advocates masquerading as impartial "scientists" that couldn't pass a lie detector test. These people give legitimate science a bad name. I would like to think that an honest and objective letter carrier would understand my concern without doing a hatchet job on me.

Aside from that, Lance; the burden of proof is on Dr. Charles Shawley, not me. I am free to comment on his theories until convinced, one way or the other. I do not have to "prove it".

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think he is the same person I had in mind. Somebody else wrote a bunch of "shit" about night hunting lights a while ago and I may have assumed this was the same guy? Who truly is a dipshit, by the way.

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Krustyklimber (Member # 72) on January 22, 2009, 09:29 PM:
 
Leonard,

It is indeed not the dipshit who wrote the article on night hunting/lights.

And all good science aside, the drift of part three, was pushing camo by brand name, so it's science with a sales based agenda.

Everything about the magazine reeks of snake oil, so I don't put much weight behind much of what I read.

Krusty

P.S. I'm with ya Leonard, wasn't it Mark Twain, who said, "There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's statistics!

[ January 22, 2009, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Krustyklimber ]
 

---

Posted by TA17Rem (Member # 794) on January 22, 2009, 10:06 PM:
 
I don't know what colors a coyote can see or not see but i do know if you are all dressed up in white and standing in a field covered with snow a coyote can see you and so can a redfox.. They may not know what you are, but they do know that they should avoid you.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on January 22, 2009, 10:29 PM:
 
I'm not on board with this theory that deer don't see orange, either. Whatever "color" the scientists tell us deer can see, instead of what we identify as orange, I am convince they can see an orange vest and orange hat, even if it is draped on a bush, not moving.

This gets to the colorblind situation where Some people can't distinguish pea green and salmon pink or lilac, or corn flower blue. I don't think it matters much what we think "they" see, as distinguished from what we see; or most of us, that is.

As far as hunting at night with a red light, amber or a green light. Forget it. The coyotes see the light. Period. And, anything you illuminate with these tinted lights, they see that also. For some reason, they aren't spooked by these tints, (for the most part), but they see the light , except for infra red, which we can't see either.

Anyway, I guess this is hot info back in Kansas, that coyotes sometimes see green as charcoal; or was it white?

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Q-Wagoner (Member # 33) on January 23, 2009, 01:12 PM:
 
I guess I am not going to loose too much sleep over it. I have hunted in my various shades and colors of Carhartts for as long as I have been hunting. I have used camouflage from time to time but in my hunting areas it makes no difference in my success rate. Not that I have noticed anyway.

The writer may be spot on in the way coyotes see color but it is kind of immaterial to a point. There is no data that proves that coyotes are scared of certain colors or avoid certain colors. I don’t think that they are “scared” of much until they are given a reason to be. If you call in a coyote under a red light, white light or a blue light and give him a bullet burn across the top of his shoulders chances are you are not going to call that coyote up to any color of a light for quite some time.

It is often said that you cannot have anything shiny at all on or in view when a coyote comes in or it will spook. It may happen from time to time but all the paint wore off of my stainless 220 swift several years ago and I haven’t noticed any difference there either. Heck it may even help you with cats. Don’t trappers sometimes use old CDs for flagging? That shine is what attracts the cats to the set.

In actuality it is probably a good thing to match your camouflage as closely as possible to your surroundings. You should also probably paint or cover any thing that shines on your gun or person. There is probably a lot of little thing you can do to help conceal your self but how much is actually necessary before you see an actual statistical difference in your total numbers?

Savvy coyote hunters have said for years that you do not need camouflage. The old schoolers keep it simple and usually say. “Hold still. Keep movement to a minimum and don’t skyline your self. Use the shade when you can and try to break up your outline.” That is as good of advice as you can get right there. It works and will continue to work. NO one can dispute that. I will leave the arguing of the details to someone else.

Good hunting.

Q,
 

---

Posted by CrossJ (Member # 884) on January 23, 2009, 05:48 PM:
 
Q, It is blatently obvious to me that you have not settled on a camo sponser yet.LOL
 

---

Posted by Wiley E (Member # 108) on January 25, 2009, 09:49 AM:
 
The topic of what coyotes see is littered with speculation and bias. Unfortunately, the promotion and sale of camo patterns has corrupted a large portion of the hunting industry towards what animals can and cannot see.

Let's see how many biases I can attach to this topic that would skew the results of a study on what coyotes can and cannot see ......

1. Sunlight vs. cloudiness
2. Background vegetation and ground pattern
3. Total camoflauge or face exposed?
4. Reflections from other objects such as scope lenses
5. Movement or totally still
6. Skylined or outline broke
7. Snow cover or bare ground
8. The presence or abscence of other foreign human shaped objects to blend in or stand out
9. Human presence within coyote territory (creates more awareness) or at the edge of coyote territory (creates less awareness).
10. The presence or absence of fresh human scent.
11. Whether the approach to the stand was detected or not.

That's just off the top of my head.

Everyone of these factors would bias any opinion on camoflauge patterns. Any researcher that wouldn't acknowledge these and other variables that would affect coyote behavior relative to camo patterns shouldn't be conducting research.

Want to know the best camo patterns? Look at nature. Simple as that. The best camo pattern in most areas I have hunted would be a hen pheasant or hen mallard pattern. Within the cat world we have the camo patterns of leopards, cheetahs, tigers and the common bobcat. Yet our industry is still to ignorant to recognize what is right there in front of them.

I have had coyotes see me move my gun, stop and jump back, then turn around and keep coming all while being within 25 yards. There is some key camo patterns that avoid detection even with movement at close range. You can't get a better test than that.

~SH~
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on January 25, 2009, 08:03 PM:
 
As much as I cannot and do not disagree with those eleven points, Scott, none of them have any relevance to the purpose for which Dr. Shawley did his investigation. What I see here are people criticizing the work of this man without giving him the decency of even reading what he wrote.

Now, I don't know him, and I don't suppose he needs me defending his results. But, I think it would be nice to at least be familiar with what he looked at and why before trying to take his results apart line item by line item. I know that you didn't specifically do that, but it seems that others are certainly trying. And, in the interest of properly looking at and assessing the value of what his results tell us, I think we owe it, if not to him, to the matter of accuracy in what we know and what we can stand to learn by simply looking at the facts objectively as his results present them and comparing them with what personal experience teaches us to be true. I've been busted bunches of times wearing blaze orange, and this year, I tested his theories by wearing green cammies and have been busted several times when against a similarly brown background. Coincidence?

His results very simply demonstrate that a coyote's retina is structured different than ours, and that because of those differences, the coyote perceives colors along a spectral range vastly different than our own.

The question has been raised as to how he can claim to know that. Well, the guy's educational credentials and professional experience are pretty strong indicators to the fact that he probably knows SOMETHING about the subject. I mean, it isn't like the guy worked in a factory all his life and all of a sudden conjured up some half-baked hypothesis. It's WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING. I take my blood pressure medicine every night because my doctor tells me that doing so has been demonstrated by research and statistics to offer me a medical benefit. I don't argue with him because I think he's in it with big pharma trying to turn a buck or extend funding for further research. It's his job. It's what he is trained and experienced in doing and I'm willing to accept that at face value. Ironically, if I chose not to, the world could very easily end for me. I don't see the present debate about how coyotes perceive color as being of similar magnitude. And no, it isn't a hot button topic in Kansas. In truth, I'm just weary of the same rejectionist attitude about anything and everything that may challenge what we've always been told anecdotally when scientifically based, peer-reviewed data and information about a study that can be easily repeated with equally and easily reproducable results sitting right there in front of us.

The point my post above was attempting to make was that his work demonstrated to the best of our abilities that coyote have dichromatic vision, see in shades of blues and yellows, and do not possess the capability to see green as we see it. Based upon what little I know about the subject (three semester of college physics), it makes reasonable sense to me that a coyote will see blues at one end of the spectrum, (we'll go along with this assumption as this is what the physiological components of the coyote's retina have been found to detect and, amongst the experts in the field, appears to be uncontrovertible) yellows at the other, and that when both the yellow and blue receptors are being stimulated, it is akin to when all the various receptors in our own retinas - including blue, purple, red, orange, yellow and green - are being fired. First year physics teaches us that the total absence of light produces black - darkness. All color frequencies together, in terms of light, produce what we perceive as white light. Thus, when the coyote sees bright green, he sees only blue and yellow - the two colors that together make green - and as such, he is seeing all the frequencies his retinas are capable of detecting, and as such, it appears WHITE.

Knowing this information, we can now take a better look at the various factors you listed and see how the issue of light and color perception influences each. Just a suggestion here.

As far as biasing in favor of any one camo pattern, I didn't get that from the articles. In fact, his articles and the pics included probably did more to compromise the claims of some of our most successful camo manufacturers than to help their sales. The impression his remarks left with me is that the old raggy tan Carharts are as effective as any high-end camo pattern if you can just learn to sit still, and that photorealistic patterns are a total waste of money for calling coyotes.

The burden of proof that Dr. Shawley is wrong in his conclusions does, in fact, lie with his detractors. What he did, and his results are outlined clearly in those first two parts for us to take or leave. If someone thinks he's off his rocker for drawing the conclusions he drew, then I would expect that they would offer as qualified and as informed a counter argument as Dr Shawley presented to begin with. He has provided his proof. Where are the detractors and critics with theirs?

I'm still trying to figure out how coyote vision and global warming are related, or what Krusty's remarks about statistics contributed to the conversation other than to back Leonard up with yet another "Me, too!!!"

Sometimes what we know isn't necessarily right, but it is what it is. Some people need to get over it.
 

---

Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on January 26, 2009, 07:30 AM:
 
Cdog911:Well, the guy's educational credentials and professional experience are pretty strong indicators to the fact that he probably knows SOMETHING about the subject. I mean, it isn't like the guy worked in a factory all his life and all of a sudden conjured up some half-baked hypothesis. It's WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING. I take my blood pressure medicine every night because my doctor tells me that doing so has been demonstrated by research and statistics to offer me a medical benefit. I don't argue with him because I think he's in it with big pharma trying to turn a buck or extend funding for further research. It's his job. It's what he is trained and experienced in doing and I'm willing to accept that at face value. Ironically, if I chose not to, the world could very easily end for me.

Cdog911:I'm still trying to figure out how coyote vision and global warming are related

Lance,

That's exactly how all the nut job Liberals justify global warming."He's a scientist,or expert,he must know what he's talking about."lol

Good Hunting Chad
 

---

Posted by Wiley E (Member # 108) on January 26, 2009, 08:09 AM:
 
Cdog,

I was told about the coyote vision article in PX by a friend of mine. Never had a chance to read it in it's entirety yet. From what I had been told and what little I did read, it sounded as if this guy finally touched on something of value on a topic that is relevant to me. This topic is important because of all the blind followers out there that believe anything they are told or read as opposed to what is right there in front of their eyes if they only stopped to look.

I was not addressing your posts or this man's research with my comments but rather the topic of camoflauge in general and the inherant biases related to promotion of certain brands and patterns of camo. For far too many callers it's not about what camo patterns work but rather what others are wearing.

What I have stated in my post above is true. This industry is littered with bias towards certain camoflauge patterns based on nothing more than who did the best job of promoting their product. Based on the research you are defending and your remarks, I think you'd have to agree.

Your defense of his eye research makes it that much more intriguing to me and I hope I can find the time to read it because it certainly appeared to have merit. I would encourage you to stick to your guns on this topic and buck traditional thinking and traditional camo industry promotion. In fact, if you are passionate enough about this topic, I would encourage you to take the next step and capture coyote reactions to various patterns on film and how these patterns look to the human eye in various habitats. If I had the time, that would be one video I would work on because it actually teaches you something. This is one of those little things that add up in order to reach a higher shooting percentage on calling stands.

Allow me to elaborate further. In order to stay within the realm of what I know as opposed to the direction of this eye research, let's seperate the topic of patterns from the topic of colors. I don't have any knowledge of colors but I understand patterns intimately by studying coyote and other animal reactions for many years.

If you just take the average camo pattern out there...let's use "Real Tree" as it was when it first came out, and place that pattern in most enviroments that I hunt, that pattern is a dark blob that allows movement to easily become detected particularly while approaching a calling stand. I cannot believe how many guys wear these types of camo patterns and never bother to stop and look at their friends, wearing the same camo patterns, sitting 30 yards away from them and how they stand out. Most coyote calling contests I have attended you will find most guys wearing these patterns and it absolutely blows my mind.

Anyone who stops to look can see which patterns blend in with most surroundings and which don't. The colors that coyotes see takes these pattern observations to another level.

Cdog: "The burden of proof that Dr. Shawley is wrong in his conclusions does, in fact, lie with his detractors."

Damn straight!

Cdog: "The impression his remarks left with me is that the old raggy tan Carharts are as effective as any high-end camo pattern if you can just learn to sit still, and that photorealistic patterns are a total waste of money for calling coyotes"

I agree but many habitats create a situation where the coyotes will be close and you are going to have to move in position to get the shot. Solid patterns, regardless how well they blend in (Carharts) can be detected as that solid pattern moves across a broken background. In contrast, a broken pattern (light background with black bars or black spots) is much more difficult to detect as it moves across a broken background.

When I really started to think about this topic was many years ago when I watched my dad and a friend of ours walking along a dead grass sidehill at a mile away on a cloudy day. The new (not faded) Carhart brown color was far easier for me to see than the solid white coveralls ON A DEAD GRASS DARK SOLID BACKGROUND. Think about that.

Take the next step and add the black bars and that light pattern disappears in most situations with any broken pattern. You can see some movement with that pattern but then you can't find where that movement came from once the movement stops. What you and I see, as far as patterns, is the same patterns coyotes see, independent of color. My coyote observations have confirmed this many times. I have had many enjoyable coyote stands based solely on what I learned about coyote reactions to certain patterns and I keep relearning some of these lessons the hard way (being too camoflauged and forgetting the shotgun).

If I could pick one pattern and only one pattern to use in every situation it would be the pattern of a Zebra. For most backgrounds I'd change the white background of the zebra pattern to tan (like a mountain lion) or the pattern of a faded pair of Carharts or the brown of a hen pheasant.

Don't take my word for this, set those patterns out there and look at them from 50 - 100 yards and you'll see what I mean.

If I was to promote one camoflauge pattern out there for virtually every background I hunted in it would be Predator. Predator is consistant with nature. I also think Kings new snow camo pattern would make a good year round pattern.

It's very simple. Light background and dark bars or dark spots. Why does the camoflauge industry continue to question what nature has already taught us? The Tree Bark pattern blends nice when you are up against a tree from the front but that pattern is still a dark blob from the side which is 66% of an animals sight picture of a man in a tree. Predator snow camo blends better in that tree when you are silhoutted against the sky from the side and still blends when you look at it from the front. There is a whole world of knowledge out there that has not been tapped when it comes to what animals do and do not see. Again, the ignorance on this topic amazes me.

Of all the critters out there, none is a better test than the pheasant. Deer and coyotes cannot see nearly as good as a pheasant. Take the time to see what you can and cannot get away with when you are in the presence of a pheasant. They'll teach you a lot. If you can avoid detection by a pheasant, the deer and coyotes are a piece of cake.

Carry on Cdog!

~SH~

[ January 26, 2009, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Wiley E ]
 

---

Posted by Wiley E (Member # 108) on January 26, 2009, 08:56 AM:
 
Chad,

In Lance's defense here, not that he needs it, the primary motivation by those in the medical field is to help others and make a difference in the world. The money and prestige doesn't justify the stress. Helping others and making a difference does.

In contrast, the scientific community is loaded with nut cases in a quest for originality in their research and concepts. They carve into stone what cannot easily be disproven simply to make themselves appear smarter than they are. A segment of society that I detest because of how many they mislead.

In contrast again, misleading the medical profession means that people suffer and lives are lost. You'd have to be one sick SOB to place originality over facts within the medical community.

I'm with Lance on this....for a change. LOL!

Apples to oranges.

~SH~
 

---

Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on January 26, 2009, 10:03 AM:
 
Scott,

This guy(DR. SHAWLEY) could be the real deal.I really can't say.My point to Lance was not really the Medical analogy that he gave as much as it was the first part of the quote.

Cdog911:Well, the guy's educational credentials and professional experience are pretty strong indicators to the fact that he probably knows SOMETHING about the subject. I mean, it isn't like the guy worked in a factory all his life and all of a sudden conjured up some half-baked hypothesis. It's WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING.

That's where I was stating the global warming issue.

And you hit it on the head with what you said to.

Wiley:In contrast, the scientific community is loaded with nut cases in a quest for originality in their research and concepts. They carve into stone what cannot easily be disproven simply to make themselves appear smarter than they are. A segment of society that I detest because of how many they mislead.

Like I said the guy could be the real deal,or then again he could be one of those guys that you mentioned,("the scientific community is loaded with nut cases in a quest for originality in their research and concepts. They carve into stone what cannot easily be disproven simply to make themselves appear smarter than they are.")

I know one thing, It really doesn't have much bearing on my calling because I have seen what works and what doesn't over the years.Hell maybe i'm using the right camo according to what this guy says a coyote sees, maybe I'm not,but as long us the coyotes keep coming and I keep killing them and not spooking them with the camo I use I really don't care.lol

Good Hunting Chad

[ January 26, 2009, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: UTcaller ]
 

---

Posted by 3 Toes (Member # 1327) on January 26, 2009, 03:42 PM:
 
Spent all damn day just trying to find a pheasant to sneak up on. Any idea how hard pheasants are to find over here Wiley?

Could I try peasants instead? Or pissants? Would that work? I'm trying to test my camo.

[ January 26, 2009, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: 3 Toes ]
 

---

Posted by TA17Rem (Member # 794) on January 26, 2009, 04:12 PM:
 
Cal did you try Locateing first??
 

---

Posted by Wiley E (Member # 108) on January 26, 2009, 05:10 PM:
 
3 Toes,

You might have to setttle for a ptarmigan. You are near the North Pole aren't you?

~SH~
 

---

Posted by 3 Toes (Member # 1327) on January 27, 2009, 06:46 AM:
 
Feels like it this morning. -18, but it's supposed to warm up later. Maybe June.
 

---

Posted by UTcaller (Member # 8) on January 27, 2009, 07:26 AM:
 
Cal,

Just think how cold it would have been this morning if we didn't have this global warming thing going on.lol

Good Hunting Chad

[ January 27, 2009, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: UTcaller ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on January 28, 2009, 01:04 PM:
 
Back home, sigh.

God damn it, Lance; I just can't break it down any simplier for ya! (that's my favorite NASA line) If you cannot follow an analogy any better than that suggested as an example; the well known dueling GLOBAL WARMING scientists, I'm more than a little surprised. There is disagreement on every side of every scientific question of the last four or five centuries. Keep sipping the Koolaid. What's your favorite, grape or cherry? I'm beginning to think you are a strange piece of work. You have zero legitimate reason to attack me and/or any of my opinions on any subject. So, WTF? Something bugging you?

Good hunting. LB
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on January 28, 2009, 02:10 PM:
 
Sorry to jump in like this. Our government has a lot of pressure to change the ADC legislation in South Africa. The greenies want to ban every lethal method. What I need to know is what methods are a ADC guy allowed to use in the USA. I know there are States that have banned certain methods like traps etc. But a registered ADC guy working for the state what will he be allowed to use and what restrictions will be put on the use of equipment and what is the requirements on training and anything else of importance you guys can think of. You are also welcome to contact me directly at hein at jaracal dot com. Will be much appreciated thanks.

Leonard, I have shot to many cats so far this past two months, it will be a risk coming over later this year.LOL. I think I have shot 14 or 15 in the past 15 days.

Take care and good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Wiley E (Member # 108) on January 29, 2009, 05:01 AM:
 
Jaracal: "But a registered ADC guy working for the state what will he be allowed to use and what restrictions will be put on the use of equipment and what is the requirements on training and anything else of importance you guys can think of."

Speaking as an ADC guy from SD regarding SD regulations.

Steel foothold traps - No restrictions. Can't rememember if there is a maxium jaw width restriction or not.

Conibear traps - No Conibear over 10" square jaw width can be place above ground. No reason to.

Snares - Snares either have to have a break away lock or device to allow deer and larger animals to pull out or a deer stop to prevent the loop from closing to a diameter less than 2 1/2" so deer can pull out. Snares must have a swivel on the anchor end and they must be tied to the anchoring device by either cable or chain. The swivels are to help prevent wrap ups with certain animals like coon to prevent the cable from breaking allowing the animal to escape with the snare. The cable or chain anchors are to prevent wire attachments which can break allowing animals to escape with the snare.

M-44s - M-44s require bi-annual training and following 26 EPA use restrictions. I don't have time to go through all the 26 use restrictions but I bet you could google them and find them.

Calling - no restrictions on calling that I can think of.

Some of the liberal states like CO have banned trapping. Some states require "padded public pacifiers". There are some useable padded traps out there but reasearch has proven modified steel jaw traps to reduce injuries as much as any steel jawed trap.

Hope this helps!

~SH~
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on January 29, 2009, 01:49 PM:
 
Wiley E
Thanks, it will help. Do you work for the state department and if so how many guys are working on ADC in SD.

Good hunting

Hein
 

---

Posted by Wiley E (Member # 108) on January 29, 2009, 06:08 PM:
 
Wiley (previous): "There are some useable padded traps out there but reasearch has proven modified steel jaw traps to reduce injuries as much as any steel jawed trap."

Sorry, that should have read "...as much as any padded trap". My bad!

Jaracal,

Yes, I work for the SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks and there is currently 19 trappers statewide.

~SH~

[ January 29, 2009, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Wiley E ]
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on January 29, 2009, 08:47 PM:
 
Wiley E
Thanks, In SA the ranchers pay for ADC control themselves, I want to show our government that in other countries the State does that with minimum contribution from the ranchers.

Does anybody know what the situation is in Canada or South America?
Thanks again
Good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Krustyklimber (Member # 72) on January 30, 2009, 10:15 AM:
 
Hein,

Scott is in a somewhat unique situation, and it doesn't work "his way" all across America.

We actually have about 50 different ways.

And they run the gambit, from Scott's Govt funded system, to private contractor States like mine.

We also have extremes, in terms of influence by powerful lobbying bodies (like Wool Growers and Cattlemen's Associations), and anti hunting and trapping groups.

I have none of the "freedom" to deal with coyotes, that Scott does.

That I know of, the State of Washington doesn't directly hire anyone for coyote control, they use private contractors (for big predators, bears and cougars).
The USDA sometimes steps in, dealing with wildlife problems on Federal lands within the State (and they also use private contractors), but I couldn't tell you how many of these "Feds" are in my area.
Otherwise all nuisance wildlife complaints, from urban to agricultural, here, are referred to a private contractor (like myself) and paid for by the complainant.

Krusty
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on January 30, 2009, 02:40 PM:
 
Krusty
Thanks. SA have about 20 million sheep with the predation running at about 1.1 Billion Rand.(devide by ten and you have the $ value) Jackal is a huge problem that gets bigger by the year. The greenies are against all lethal control methods and we are trying to convince the goverment not to put restrictions on any ADC methods.
Good hunting
Hein
 

---

Posted by Krustyklimber (Member # 72) on January 30, 2009, 06:53 PM:
 
Hein,

You might find This letter interesting, and helpful?

Krusty
 

---

Posted by Jaracal (Member # 3346) on February 01, 2009, 01:00 PM:
 
krusty
Thanks again that is an interesting letter and website! Lot of research results.

Good hunting
Hein
 

---

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.0