When Mark and Adam Grinstead invited Carl and I to a recent duck hunt, we jumped at the opportunity to go.  The Grinsteads have hunted ducks for many years and are happy to share their knowledge with others.  I’ve never called anything other than predators, so I was looking forward to seeing ducks respond to the call and trying to film the action.

Earlier in the week, Mark and Adam each took their limit of ducks.  They spent two hours breaking a large hole in the ice so they could place decoys on open water.  Once the decoys were floating on the water, they waited patiently for the sun to come up.

Here is Mark with the harvested ducks.

Mark Grinstead with ducks -- 2011-11-21

Here is Adam with the harvested ducks.

Adam Grinstead with ducks -- 2011-11-21

Zeus is Adam’s duck dog.  He’s eight months old and retrieving very well for his young age.  With maturity, experience and additional training he’s going to be a fantastic duck retriever.

Carl and I met the Grinsteads at the hunting area at 6 a.m. on Black Friday (no Christmas shopping for us!).  We walked to the blind and got situated.  Due to warm weather, the pond wasn’t frozen and Adam had an easy time dispersing 30 decoys.

Here are the video highlights from our hunt.

Thanks for reading.

Regards and good calling,

Mike Healy

Carl and I were on stand and had been calling for approximately 15 minutes with no results.  Suddenly, I spotted a single coyote cresting the low hill across from us. From 350 yards out, it proceeded to run straight into our setup.

My Wildlife Technologies electronic caller was situated well below us on the hillside and we had good cover against some large boulders.  The wind was also in our favor.

Glancing to my left, I could see Carl’s rifle leveled out and he was leaning into the scope.  Good — he had seen it also.

While easing my rifle into position for a shot at the incoming coyote, Carl fired his rifle.  Hearing the shot, the coyote I was watching pivoted and ran sideways at full speed.  Carl fired at it a couple of times and missed as it ran away.  I fired once and also missed.

When the dust settled, I stood up and said, “It got away.  Why didn’t you wait for it to come closer and stop moving before firing?”  Carl got a funny look on his face and calmly replied, “Dad, this stand was a double!  There’s a coyote on the ground out there.  My first shot took it out.  Didn’t you see it?”

Oops!  I hadn’t even seen the other coyote.  Better get my eyes checked.

We walked out and searched the brush for a few minutes.  Sure enough, a coyote was down.

I laser ranged back to the rock pile where we were sitting to be certain of the distance — 252 yards.  Nice shot Carl!

Idaho Coyote, September 2011, Remington R-15 VTR Carbine with AR Gold trigger

Thanks for reading.

Regards and good calling,

Mike Healy

My son, Carl, is thirteen and we enjoy coyote calling as often as we are able to make time to get into the field.

Carl didn’t have school on Friday so I took the day off and we went coyote calling.  The window of opportunity was excellent as it was a weekday and Idaho’s rifle season for deer hadn’t opened yet.

In the early afternoon we were calling on a small parcel of state land surrounded by private property and had a very energizing experience with several nearby coyotes.

Our truck was well concealed behind a small hill with a headwind in our favor.  Seated on a hillside with adequate cover and a good view, I placed my Wildlife Technologies electronic caller downhill about 30 paces in front of us.  Instead of hiding the caller in a bush, I placed it in the bottom of a waist-deep sinkhole.

I started the stand with two loud female coyote howls and then paused to listen for a response.  Within 30 seconds a couple of coyotes responded by howling back at us.  They were to our left and just beyond a low hill.  I waited another 30 seconds and played a few red tail hawk screams.  The coyotes to our left responded again.  I then paused for a few seconds of silence to let everything soak in and another coyote started howling directly in front of us.

Scanning the land directly in front of us, I couldn’t see the coyote that was howling.  Carl was seated to my right and I didn’t want to miss any movement on our left flank made by the coyotes that were howling over there.  I shifted my focus to the left and let Carl sort out what was likely unfolding in front of us.

Manipulating the remote control below the level of the sage brush to avoid detection, I lowered the volume and played a squeaky mouse vole distress sound.  The coyotes to the left continued to howl and were obviously upset by the intrusion that my original howl represented.  After a minute of the mouse vole, I silenced the caller.  The coyotes to our left were still howling sporadically.

Struggling to pick out any movement at all, I finally spotted a coyote running from center stage to our left at 500 yards out.  Carl then clicked his safety off.  I figured there was something else going on that I couldn’t see so I went back to watching our left flank.

As we sat motionless with Carl’s safety off, I ran through the following sound sequence two or three times:

1. red tail hawk screams
2. pause
3. crows mobbing a meat pile
4. pause
5. coyote pup distress
6. pause

Amazingly, the coyotes to our left continued to howl during the above sequence.

I then reverted to the mouse vole distress sound on low volume to wait it out and see what was going to happen.  We were in the range of 10 to 12 minutes into the stand when suddenly… BANG!  I shifted my eyes back to the center just in time to see a coyote fall to the ground.  Carl had been monitoring its approach and fired when it stopped at 121 yards from where we were sitting.  He first spotted the coyote at 450 yards and observed its deliberately slow advance for many minutes before taking the shot.

Idaho Coyote, October 2011

Having the caller in the sink hole probably helped us out on this stand.  Coyotes have that amazing ability to pinpoint the precise location on the surface of the earth where a sound is coming from.  In this case, I suspect the coyote felt compelled to get close enough to see into the bottom of the sink hole to conclusively determine the source of the sound.

Regards and thanks for reading,

Mike Healy

There is some controversy over these proposed resolutions as some of the so-called “wildlife advocate” groups have not signed off on the proposed deal. This still leaves the door open for future litigation from these groups that could still prove troublesome for the long term.

Wolf - Courtesy of the US Fish & Wildlife Service/Tracy Brooks

Two separate articles on this issue are here for you to read, the first is from the Idaho Statesman, sent to us by Mike Healy, one of our readers. This article deals with a plan that Montana and Idaho seemingly have come to an agreement, along with many of the “wildlife advocate” groups. This action was prompted by the fact that the Federal Govt. was apparently on the verge of de-listing the wolf nationwide. This would have been a big blow to the “wildlife advocate” groups, a crushing defeat really. Instead, this still leaves them wiggle room to press for keeping wolves listed as endangered in states where wolves are beginning to gain a foothold such as Oregon and Washington.

The second article is from the Billings Gazette. This article talks of a meeting that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had with Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead regarding Wyoming’s plan to manage wolf populations within the state borders.  Wyoming has long listed the wolf as a predator, not a big game species. This has meant that Wyoming residents had the ability to “shoot on sight” any wolf, with the exception of those populating the northwest corner of the state, specifically in and around Yellowstone National Park.

We would like to see this issue come to resolution.  States manage wildlife populations within their borders much more efficiently than the Feds.  By this controversy continuing to go on, the states cannot manage populations properly in large part due to the fact that one apex predator is off limits, thus any balance that they try to establish is nullified.

Your comments on this issue are always welcome, we encourage our readers that live in the affected states to contact their legislators and make your voice heard. We also encourage readers that live in other areas that have interest in this issue to do so as well.

Subscribing is free! You can do so right here:

Good hunting!

Marc Reindell

info@wildlifecallers.com

Some states do allow the public, via the voting booth, to determine how wildlife is managed.  California voters do not allow mountain lions to be hunted.  As a result, many more encounters between lions and humans have occurred and several people have been killed. Pulblic safety should be a priority.  Just last month a Mt. Lion had to be killed by police in Berkeley after the large cat wandered into the city.  Several Berkeley citizens, seeking the protection of the government, called police to the scene. After police acted appropriately & lawfully and killed the lion, a memorial was erected for the lion at the place it met its demise and a backlash against the police for “overreacting” began.  How would these same Californians have reacted had the cat attacked a small child and dragged it off? 

The right of states to manage wildlife is currently being challenged in Idaho and Montana in the wolf hunting controversy. The ability of these states to control wolf populations has been temporarily knocked down by the federal court, giving wolves (that have reached a sustainable population and then some) far more rights & protections than the elk, moose, and deer.  And let’s not forget cattle ranchers and sheep herders whose livelihood’s depend on the well-being of their livestock. These western states have all but been excluded from game management within their own borders. 

Allowing an emotional voting population to determine how states regulate and manage wildlife populations is a slippery slope. People not familiar the science behind biodiversity and the way game animal balances are established by trained wildlife biologists and state game managers can be easily swayed by emotion, fear, and anthropomorphic fallacies or ”the humanization of wild animals”  into cute, cuddly creatures that in no way resemble their true counterparts in the wild.  

It’s more than obvious that I believe in state’s rights and think hunting regulations, game animal population management, predator control, and other aspects of hunting are best left to state game agencies.  I’m voting YES on AZ Prop 109.  But, what do you think?

Should hunting and fishing become a constitutional right with management reserved to professional biologists & game managers or should it be maintained as is?  Would you like to see these protections in your state?  Is there a downside I’m missing?

We’d like to hear from you on this, so feel free to comment.  As always, it’s free to subscribe, just enter your info below.

Thanks for reading,

Marc Reindell

marc@wildlifecallers.com