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?

 

[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.