Coyotes and Deer

[Jstpssng]

I will let you in on a little trade secret, a cheap 3/8 poly rope with a slip knot for a noose will choke down any animal that you can get the rope around it's neck, and you can drop the rope once tight on the neck, it won't relax.

I have released coyotes, Javelina, cougar, badger, raccoon, Coati Mundi, dogs of all sizes and descriptions from foot hold traps by myself with just eight feet of 3/8 poly rope, never had a animal die or got a scare or scratch to myself in 12 trapping seasons, Oct.- Feb.for me.

For me when dealing with wild animal's many miles off the beaten path my safety and convenience are number 1.

Choke sticks are a burden and dangerous IMO, but better than nothing.

Have fun --J

I'm not good enough to trap canines, so never had to worry about it. Most trapping up here is done from a truck so it isn:t a big deal to carry a choke stick.

I was just making an observation in hopes that someone would expand on my comment... thank you for doimg so.

My comment on releasing personal pets holds though.

 

[N80]

George, I don't have a pre-defined vision of what natural balance is supposed to be, or not supposed to be, that is the entire point. It will be what it will be and I can live with the mystery and ambiguity. It is not for me to define that. I don't think it is for humans to define, and maybe that is where we differ. Ambiguity does not equate to meaningless-ness.

I don't see how you can be ambiguous and critical of those who have a defined idea of how to manage things. If you know how it shouldn't be done then you have to have a less than ambiguous idea of how it should be done. Which is the same way as defining it. You can't have it both ways.

And that line of thinking begs the question that if humans don't define it, then who does. Just like all other creatures we have an impact on the environment. Humans will always be a force of environmental change. If that is true, and it is, then either we manage the impact we have on the environment or we do not. In order to manage the impact we have, we have to define our goals. If we are not going to define them then we have no basis for complaining about strip mining or exploding oil wells.

"There is NOTHING that we can do that is unnatural because we ARE nature" is true to a large extent but fails to account for the fact that we, perhaps uniquely, are capable of destroying ourselves, and it is not natural for a species to seek to extinguish itself.

You will have to be more specific about what you mean by seeking to destroy ourselves. Most species, as groups, can exhibit behaviors detrimental to the species. If you mean making a conscious choice to destroy ourselves I don't think there is any evidence outside of episodes of Star Trek that we, as a species, are seeking our own destruction any more than any other.

I assume we want to avoid that result, even though there is no rule of nature that would prevent that outcome.

Correct. If nature is not created then whatever happens just happens. There is no good or bad outcome. Just evolved systems (including us) acting by chance and time.

Environmentalism is one approach to avoiding self destruction.It is not dogmatic or based on a moral imperative, it is understanding the history of our actions and interpreting the results. If we want to survive, then this is not to be a philosophical interpretation of results, it is hard facts that matter. Can we drink the water, can we breathe the air, do the oceans supply food, is our land productive, are there too many of us, and so forth. These are practical concerns, not philosophical paradoxes.

That is typically a crutch for environmentalists. We have, as a species, done quite well without Passenger Pigeons. During the time that environmentalism has been in vogue, the population of humans on this planet has continued to explode. There are very few practical aspects of environmentalism that even come close to being critical to the survival of humans as a species. Some of those concerns may have an impact on quality of life, but not on the continuation of our DNA. And as soon as we start talking about managing the planet to preserve or create a certain quality of life, well, that is called conservation. And that is a whole different animal from environmentalism.

I don't think you read this very carefully if you want to inform me about nature in flux and evolution:
"Naturally, some species will benefit by changing the landscape, and some will not. But that isn't the same as just setting aside areas and letting them be wild. Those wild areas will revert to as near a truly natural species and plant life condition as possible. Even then, the plant and animal make-up is going to be continually changing due to natural causes, and there really is no place on the globe that human influences have zero impact."

Actually, I think you need to re-read that yourself. How can you understand the constant change of nature and yet still make an appeal to "natural balance"? You even use the phrase "truly natural species and plant life condition". What does that mean? What is that state of affairs? When did it exist, if ever? What does it look like? If you cannot say, or have no idea, then how can you say that anyone's approach is wrong?

You have acknowledged that humans having an impact on the planet is a cat that is out of the bag. You indicated that we, as animals, are part of nature and have no moral obligation to protect the planet. And yet, you have indicated that you think that a lot of what we do to our environment is wrong and wrong-headed. And at the same time you admit that you don't have a clear definition of what nature should look like and that we humans should not even define it? I think you can see that these positions are inconsistent.

I suspect that you and I have similar ideas about how we should treat our planet. I believe we do have a moral obligation to use this planet wisely and to protect it. I think the place that we ultimately differ is that I believe in the responsibility AND the reason we have it. You do not seem to believe we have the responsibility, a reason for the responsibility, or even any reason at all other than self-preservation.

 

[Ken45101]

Environmentalism is one approach to avoiding self destruction.

Sure fooled me! As far as I can tell, the "environmentalists" won't be happy until the human race is extinct.

 

[westcliffe01]

If you consider the western part of the US, millions of hunters shoot coyotes, yet they thrive. Generally it seems that the more of them you take out, the easier it is for the balance to find food, compete for territory and raise larger numbers of offspring. However, I do believe that hunting has the desired effect of making them avoid humans and run from human scent.

If hunting them achieves nothing else, that by itself is worth the effort. By contrast, coyotes living in cities do not have this natural aversion and so having them, people and pets in proximity is a recipe for problems. California, as always the most liberal and restrictive state is the poster child for this since the vast majority of coyote on human attacks have occurred there. According to this wiki record (long out of date) Coyote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at the time it was written (march 2006) a total of 160 attacks had been recorded. This is a quote from that article:

Coyote attacks on humans are uncommon and rarely cause serious injuries, due to the relatively small size of the coyote, but have been increasingly frequent, especially in the state of California. In the 30 years leading up to March 2006, at least 160 attacks occurred in the United States, mostly in the Los Angeles County area.[67] Data from USDA Wildlife Services, the California Department of Fish and Game, and other sources show that while 41 attacks occurred during the period of 1988?997, 48 attacks were verified from 1998 through 2003. The majority of these incidents occurred in Southern California near the suburban-wildland interface.[68]

In the absence of the harassment of coyotes practiced by rural people, urban coyotes are losing their fear of humans, which is further worsened by people intentionally or unintentionally feeding coyotes. In such situations, some coyotes have begun to act aggressively toward humans, chasing joggers and bicyclists, confronting people walking their dogs, and stalking small children.[68] Nonrabid coyotes in these areas will sometimes target small children, mostly under the age of 10, though some adults have been bitten.

Although media reports of such attacks generally identify the animals in question as simply "coyotes", research into the genetics of the eastern coyote indicates those involved in attacks in northeast North America, including Pennsylvania, New York, New England, and eastern Canada, may have actually been coywolves, hybrids of Canis latrans and Canis lupus, not fully coyotes.[69]

You will note that LA county (where I think only a handful of concealed carry permits have been issued in decades) is where the majority of the attacks occurred.

 

[whistlepig]

OK. So let's try the pro-coyote approach here. They are just perfectly marvelous beasts. They eat 40% of newborn fawns in the spring. They will wipe out rabbits, deer, and wild fowl like quail, turkeys, and pheasants. In the cities the will snatch cats and small dogs out of back yards. When it is all said and done you will have a backyard full of coyotes. Forget the turkeys, rabbits, quail, pheasants, and deer. Coyotes are all that you will have. You have to live in a coyote infested place to understand this.

 

[dave1949]

N80 George: "I don't see how you can be ambiguous and critical of those who have a defined idea of how to manage things. If you know how it shouldn't be done then you have to have a less than ambiguous idea of how it should be done. Which is the same way as defining it. You can't have it both ways."

Do you understand "nothingness"? The results of what may be or not be, can be ambiguous without any idea on my part. Thoughts of how something should be done or not be done, does not preclude doing nothing even though the results can be ambiguous. I'm not trying to have it either way, I am saying to be willing to accept the mystery.

There is an excellent chance that whatever results occur, they will not be well understood. Again, that is practical results from our history speaking. The environment is complex enough that humans are a long way from understanding most of the inter-related causes and effects. When something vital to our existence is "working" and it is not well understood, only an idiot starts monkeying with it, or taking on a convenient believe that doing this or that can make no real difference.

George: "That is typically a crutch for environmentalists. We have, as a species, done quite well without Passenger Pigeons. During the time that environmentalism has been in vogue, the population of humans on this planet has continued to explode. There are very few practical aspects of environmentalism that even come close to being critical to the survival of humans as a species. Some of those concerns may have an impact on quality of life, but not on the continuation of our DNA. And as soon as we start talking about managing the planet to preserve or create a certain quality of life, well, that is called conservation. And that is a whole different animal from environmentalism."

We don't have much common ground on this. Just because we have not yet failed, doesn't mean failure is impossible. In fact, we are already living with a degraded environment that contributes a "different" quality of life that many would describe as a poorer quality of life. Our DNA is subject to being changed (damaged) by existing environmental contaminates that do not occur naturally.


George: "Actually, I think you need to re-read that yourself. How can you understand the constant change of nature and yet still make an appeal to "natural balance"? You even use the phrase "truly natural species and plant life condition". What does that mean? What is that state of affairs? When did it exist, if ever? What does it look like? If you cannot say, or have no idea, then how can you say that anyone's approach is wrong?"

Natural balance does not imply a static state. I explicitly said nature changes. As it changes, it will, at least always has, find a new balanced state of nature. You could take a photo of a woodland or some location every month for years on end. None of those photos would identical, but they would all represent a natural balanced state that was arrived at by natural means. Now I know you are going to say, "Well, what if I cut down a tree or run through it with a plow, is that a natural change?" My answer would be, yes, of sorts, but it is a natural change you should forego sometimes, because you can predict the results of cutting all the trees or plowing all the ground.

George: You have acknowledged that humans having an impact on the planet is a cat that is out of the bag. You indicated that we, as animals, are part of nature and have no moral obligation to protect the planet. And yet, you have indicated that you think that a lot of what we do to our environment is wrong and wrong-headed. And at the same time you admit that you don't have a clear definition of what nature should look like and that we humans should not even define it? I think you can see that these positions are inconsistent.

I do believe we have a moral obligation to protect the planet, if you can define moral. Is the will to survive a morality? It is easier to see (for me at least) that if we want to survive as a species, we will enhance our chances by promoting a rich and diverse environment, and our chances are poorer when we do not. Fortunately, we do not need to, and probably are not capable of, defining "rich and diverse", we only need to recognize what is less or more rich and diverse. I think that is fairly easy to do.

George:" I suspect that you and I have similar ideas about how we should treat our planet. I believe we do have a moral obligation to use this planet wisely and to protect it. I think the place that we ultimately differ is that I believe in the responsibility AND the reason we have it. You do not seem to believe we have the responsibility, a reason for the responsibility, or even any reason at all other than self-preservation."

I don't know why you would conclude I think we have no responsibility to the planet. Self-preservation seems like a good enough reason. But it goes beyond that for me. I, like you probably, have my own subjective reasons. Appealing to subjective reasoning may or may not succeed. For example, I could say a live coyote doing whatever coyotes do (within reason of course), looks a lot better to me than a dead coyote. Why would or should you care?

 

[dave1949]

Sure fooled me! As far as I can tell, the "environmentalists" won't be happy until the human race is extinct.

I had no idea you could be fooled that easily :laughing:

 

[dave1949]

OK. So let's try the pro-coyote approach here. They are just perfectly marvelous beasts. They eat 40% of newborn fawns in the spring. They will wipe out rabbits, deer, and wild fowl like quail, turkeys, and pheasants. In the cities the will snatch cats and small dogs out of back yards. When it is all said and done you will have a backyard full of coyotes. Forget the turkeys, rabbits, quail, pheasants, and deer. Coyotes are all that you will have. You have to live in a coyote infested place to understand this.

Such a condition is not found or very rare and short-lived in a natural environmental state. I understand your feelings, but it also matters for the purpose of discussion, to ask how does Preble County, Ohio, or California, arrive at such an unnatural condition? Coyotes are notable because they represent a threat of harm or economic loss, but they aren't the only thing out of balance. Do you understand the mechanisms by which this happened? I don't. I doubt the answer is because people didn't shoot enough coyotes. That could be a solution but not a root cause.

 

[whistlepig]

Such a condition is not found or very rare and short-lived in a natural environmental state. I understand your feelings, but it also matters for the purpose of discussion, to ask how does Preble County, Ohio, or California, arrive at such an unnatural condition? Coyotes are notable because they represent a threat of harm or economic loss, but they aren't the only thing out of balance. Do you understand the mechanisms by which this happened? I don't. I doubt the answer is because people didn't shoot enough coyotes. That could be a solution but not a root cause.

Do you have a lot of coyotes where you live? If so, how attached are you to them?

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Trying to avoid this debate but I forget, are humans part of nature or did we come from another planet? If we did originate from this planet then how is it what humans do not natural? We're part of nature right?