Coyotes and Deer

[N80]

Do you understand "nothingness"?

No, clearly I do not.

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.

You've totally lost me here. If your answer to environmental issues is "do nothing" and let things work out, then that IS your management plan. You have decided what to do or not to do. That is no different from a plan that includes killing coyotes. It is no more right or wrong. It has no more or less merit.

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.

But I thought you said, way back in this post, that liberals were in fact 'doing something' and it was all good. Right? So if they are doing something now then by your definition they are "monkeying with" with the environmental status quo. Are they idiots too?

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.

This is a somewhat pessimistic view. It is also a view that fails to account for success. As I already mentioned, in this current global environment that you seem to see as so dismal, humans are thriving. And from an evolutionary viewpoint, which is the only viewpoint available to most environmentalists, the current climate and conditions are nearly PERFECT based on human population growth. You'd have to be an "idiot" to "monkey with it" now, right? And quality of life is not a concern of nature. It is an arbitrary measure created by us and does not necessarily have any bearing on the survival of our genome. And yes, our DNA can be changed......which is the singular power that drives evolution.....how can an environmentalist decry change in DNA? There is no good or bad change in DNA, right? There is only change that propogates the DNA or fails to propagate it. Whether that DNA drives a Ferrari or starves to death after cranking out 10 children is immaterial in the progress of evolution.

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.

Nope. This is an oxymoronic statement. If there is always change (and there is) then the only thing "balance" can imply is what nature looks like at some chosen point in time. The word "balance" is a euphemism when applied to nature and is used as a tool to imply that one state of nature is better than another.....which you have indicated is not so, right? Or have you? Again, that's another trap. If you say there is a preferable state then you are no better than the "monkeying" "idiots". If you say there are no preferred states then trying to change the current or future state is silly.

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.

You are speaking at cross purposes and contradicting yourself. You use the word "should" when you have said several times that you have no definition of what nature should look like nor should we form such a definition. AGAIN, if you say there are things we "should" and should not do, your are imposing imperatives and exposing the fact that you DO in fact have your own idea of how nature should look. It perplexes me that you will not admit that.

I do believe we have a moral obligation to protect the planet, if you can define moral.

You are contradiciting yourself again. A moral obligation goes beyond the practical and pragmatic. It must be done and the reason that it must be done cannot be based on opinion or practical matters such as improved quality of life. That being the case, what is the basis for your moral obligation. Why do I have to do what you say is best for the environment? Why isn't my idea of what is best for the environment as good as yours. If you don't take anything else away from this conversation this is the one you need to think about the most.

Is the will to survive a morality?

Absolutely not.

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.

There is little to no scientific evidence to support this. It sounds like a good idea, but there is no basis for it outside of ideology and contrived consensus "science".

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.

If you can recognize whic is less or more then you ARE defining it. And no, not only is it not easy, it is impossible. Ask any 100 people to agree on your definition.

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.

I believe we do have a responsibility. I'm saying you have to have a reason to believe that and a basis with which to defend that belief in a sound, logical way. And no, self preservation is not a reason because it is nebulous. The way I preserve myself might be harmful to you and vice versa, right? So claiming self preservation is not sufficient.

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?[/B]

We are clearly getting nowhere, except that you have acknowledged that your subjective reasons are not sufficient to impose your will (your vision of what nature should look like...which you have both claimed and denied that you have) on anyone else. That IS a big step in understanding why you believe something! And yes, you could feel that a live coyote is better than a dead coyote. I could believe the exact opposite. And without that moral imperative our individual beliefs are equal...which means that in fact, a dead coyote is no different from a live on except in terms of opinion. This is what you need to understand the most!

Why should I care? That is truly a perplexing question coming from such a pragmatist as yourself. But here you go: The live coyote ate my calf. Calves are how I feed my family. The coyote ate my poodle which is a big part of my life and in which I was emotionally invested. The live coyote is disturbing the game which I have spent time and money to increase and preserve. The live coyote is populating the area to such levels that other species are declining. The live coyote frightens my wife. The live coyote ate my baby. The live coyote is fun and legal to hunt, just like deer.

 

[dave1949]

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

We always have some around. They run the trails we walk with the dogs and it isn't uncommon to hear them at night. Once in a great while, we see one during the day, but honestly I've seen moose and deer more often than coyotes. We have black bears, bobcats, red fox, snowshoe hare, turkeys and grouse too. We don't have any of those in what seems to be un-natural numbers. If that is true, things seem to be going along in a fairly natural balance. There is a lot of habitat around here that gets very little disturbance aside from getting logged every 20-30 years and a few hunters.

As a point of curiosity, I wonder how you came to be overrun with coyotes. It could be a result of exploding deer populations is the only idea I have. What are your ideas?

 

[N80]

We always have some around. They run the trails we walk with the dogs and it isn't uncommon to hear them at night. Once in a great while, we see one during the day, but honestly I've seen moose and deer more often than coyotes. We have black bears, bobcats, red fox, snowshoe hare, turkeys and grouse too. We don't have any of those in what seems to be un-natural numbers. If that is true, things seem to be going along in a fairly natural balance. There is a lot of habitat around here that gets very little disturbance aside from getting logged every 20-30 years and a few hunters.

So you kind of like the way things are around your place? I liked the way things were on my place before the coyotes came. And you might not like the way things were around your place if you were overwhelmed with coyotes and your hare, grouse and fox populations plummeted.

As a point of curiosity, I wonder how you came to be overrun with coyotes. It could be a result of exploding deer populations is the only idea I have. What are your ideas?

There are lots of theories and myths about that too and it all depends on the location. The SC DNR has a FAQ in which they deny introducing coyotes into the state. They did not, but the myths and rumors abound. As in most cases the answer will be multifactorial and far from simple.

We are also overwhelmed with pigs and this is a much bigger problem than coyotes. They are non-native, destructive and are out competeing many native species. Some are escaped domestic pigs that have become feral, others are wild stock that were illegally introduced to the area. It would be interesting to hear your opinon about the pigs. Would you agree that a do-nothing policy is best for those too?

 

[dave1949]

N80 George: "You've totally lost me here. If your answer to environmental issues is "do nothing" and let things work out, then that IS your management plan. You have decided what to do or not to do. That is no different from a plan that includes killing coyotes. It is no more right or wrong. It has no more or less merit."

Well, we agree, we are clearly getting no where. Your statement above is categorically wrong. Doing nothing may be a plan, but it isn't management. It is the opposite of management.

You seem to take great delight in parsing my statements into pieces as if that is my complete thought. Some of your answers make me feel like I am talking to myself. And some show you do not understand what I am saying:

Dave: "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?"

George: "Why should I care? That is truly a perplexing question coming from such a pragmatist as yourself. But here you go: The live coyote ate my calf. Calves are how I feed my family. The coyote ate my poodle which is a big part of my life and in which I was emotionally invested. The live coyote is disturbing the game which I have spent time and money to increase and preserve. The live coyote is populating the area to such levels that other species are declining. The live coyote frightens my wife. The live coyote ate my baby. The live coyote is fun and legal to hunt, just like deer."

Your answer is about the coyote, not why you care, or do not care, about my subjective view of the coyote. Two different things.

This discussion began about habitat, the need to set aside un-managed habitat for the sake of preserving biodiversity. It isn't about your farm or domestic animals, that will always be managed habitat as long as you actively use it. My original question remains unanswered; what happens when all the space is effectively in some way managed?

 

[dave1949]

So you kind of like the way things are around your place? I liked the way things were on my place before the coyotes came. And you might not like the way things were around your place if you were overwhelmed with coyotes and your hare, grouse and fox populations plummeted.



There are lots of theories and myths about that too and it all depends on the location. The SC DNR has a FAQ in which they deny introducing coyotes into the state. They did not, but the myths and rumors abound. As in most cases the answer will be multifactorial and far from simple.

We are also overwhelmed with pigs and this is a much bigger problem than coyotes. They are non-native, destructive and are out competeing many native species. Some are escaped domestic pigs that have become feral, others are wild stock that were illegally introduced to the area. It would be interesting to hear your opinon about the pigs. Would you agree that a do-nothing policy is best for those too?

Yes, I am relatively happy with the way things are here. That is why I question the wisdom of some things people would like to do here. In short, I don't have a lot of faith that they have any idea what they are doing.

I understand that you have problems with coyotes and feral hogs, and I don't think you are bad guy for dealing with them. We don't have as much agriculture here, and hence fewer interactions with potential problems. So, in a sense it is easy for me to take a more critical stance when I am not paying any of the price. I understand that.

I agree the answers as to how things got to where they are, will not be simple. That illustrates my idea that if figuring out a small number of problem species is complex, then how would we ever think we are knowledgeable enough to actively manage all habitat? If we are willing to admit that, then we should leave some habitat alone.

 

[westcliffe01]

For the farmer who lost all the gains made in the previous 2-3 years to coyotes, the answer really was that more coyotes needed to be shot and otherwise made to feel unwelcome on his property. When he can afford it, the boundary fences will be replaced, expensive because of the need to bulldoze the old hedge rows to allow access for maintenance. In addition, electric will be added on the outside, but that area has to be kept mowed to remain effective. So the fence line may have to be displaced to allow for that maintenance. Coyote become an expensive problem when you keep livestock and when their common prey is reduced / displaced as in the recent hunting season and through crop harvest.

But in the meantime, the farmer is happy for hunters to come out and volunteer time to shoot them at no charge. Its just a question of finding hunters who actually consider the safety of the family and their livestock, since it is apparently not that common to have common sense.

I doubt the answer is because people didn't shoot enough coyotes. That could be a solution but not a root cause.

 

[N80]

Well, we agree, we are clearly getting no where.

My original question remains unanswered; what happens when all the space is effectively in some way managed?

Look around, it already is. And yes, deciding not to touch something is a form of management. It is a decision that someone makes about what to do or not to do. Management can, and should be, passive as well as active.

 

[N80]

Yes, I am relatively happy with the way things are here. That is why I question the wisdom of some things people would like to do here. In short, I don't have a lot of faith that they have any idea what they are doing.

Bingo! And if you countered their ideas with your own they might feel the same way, right?

I agree the answers as to how things got to where they are, will not be simple. That illustrates my idea that if figuring out a small number of problem species is complex, then how would we ever think we are knowledgeable enough to actively manage all habitat? If we are willing to admit that, then we should leave some habitat alone.

That is not a rational conclusion. That is like saying your house is on fire but since you don't know all the principles of fire fighting that you don't try something. Even if you're not a professional fire fighter you know not to throw gasoline on it and you have at least a vague notion that water might help. Doing nothing can be as detrimental as doing something. Doing nothing will achieve the same outcome as thwoing gasoline on it. And it really isn't fair to tell someone else they shouldn't throw water on their burning house just because they aren't a firefighter.......especially when your house is not on fire.

And again, aren't you the one arguing that we'd all be in hot water if the liberals hadn't been doing something?

And I'm all for leaving some stuff alone if that's what seems like the best thing to do. I like to think that there are areas that are "pristine" and "untouched". But that is still a choice that is based on how we want things to be. And leaving habitat alone is not always the best policy. We often put out forest fires in our national parks even though the fires are part of a natural, regenerative process. There are good arguments on both sides of that issue.

 

[dave1949]

For the farmer who lost all the gains made in the previous 2-3 years to coyotes, the answer really was that more coyotes needed to be shot and otherwise made to feel unwelcome on his property. When he can afford it, the boundary fences will be replaced, expensive because of the need to bulldoze the old hedge rows to allow access for maintenance. In addition, electric will be added on the outside, but that area has to be kept mowed to remain effective. So the fence line may have to be displaced to allow for that maintenance. Coyote become an expensive problem when you keep livestock and when their common prey is reduced / displaced as in the recent hunting season and through crop harvest.

But in the meantime, the farmer is happy for hunters to come out and volunteer time to shoot them at no charge. Its just a question of finding hunters who actually consider the safety of the family and their livestock, since it is apparently not that common to have common sense.

You totally missed the point, and the difference between cause and remedy. Are you going to shoot at coyotes forever without once wondering why there came to be so many? Not the least bit curious?

 

[N80]

You totally missed the point, and the difference between cause and remedy. Are you going to shoot at coyotes forever without once wondering why there came to be so many? Not the least bit curious?

Being curious and wondering why do not bring back dead sheep or keep food on a farmer's table. Not to mention the fact that he might be deeply curious....every time he pulls the trigger.