cp1969-
Ahhh - where to start.....
Ok, I guess I'll start with your "proof"....
<font color=blue>In fact, many times I have seen coyotes walk through a pasture filled with cows and calves and they won't even stop grazing, let alone make an attempt to get away from what is supposedly their predator.
...
And you expect me to disregard that body of evidence and accept on someone's internet say-so that coyotes' behavior as an entire group is to routinely prey on livestock?</font color=blue>
per my earlier posts:
<font color=red>
Do I think every coyote is a "bloodthirsty killer" - uh, no. I believe that their actions are based on a lot of factors, the biggest of which is ease of obtaining food. I suspect, like most animals, coyotes are lazy and want the easiest & "most hearty" meal available. Newborn, sick, weak, or "trapped" livestock seem to be pretty easy targets to me.
</font color=red>
Maybe if you would
carefully read my comments the first time around, you wouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction and try and twist what I said. Seems that my belief in coyotes going after "easy targets" would fit nicely with your "real world" experience, assuming there are easier things for them to hunt in "your neck of the woods."
<font color=blue>When you say "just because you didn't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't happen" is exactly that--it is asking me to take someone else's word that an event occurred.
...
Not once did I find a person who claimed he'd actually seen it, except from persons who were in my opinion blowhards or known liars.</font color=blue>
per my earlier posts:
<font color=red>if someone refuses to believe...they must state that every “eyewitness” on this thread who saw such an attack is either (a) unable to distinguish the difference between a coyote & other animals (such as a dog) OR (b) they are a liar.
</font color=red>
Seems pretty plain to me that you are calling all those who have posted that they've "seen it with their own eyes" outright liars (or idiots). Sorry you hold such a low opinion of those individuals. Per one of my earlier posts, I'll simply say that I do not concur with your assessment of their truthfulness.
<font color=blue>I'm willing to believe that coyote behavior could very well be different where you live, but don't try to tell me that's how they are around here, because they aren't.</font color=blue>
Never said it did indeed happen in your location - all I said was that you can't PROVE it didn't. I've seen plenty of known criminals NOT conduct crimes when I was around them, but that doesn't mean they were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. Big difference. "That could NEVER happen in MY neighborhood." -- Ahhh, where have I heard these words before??? /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif
<font color=blue>as a juror I would probably have to put my personal experience aside and vote with the preponderance of witness testimony</font color=blue>
/w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif So, you are basically telling me you simply can't/won't believe one of your "local" coyotes could/would attack livestock/deer unless you see it with your own eyes. Wouldn't matter if one of your local honest "Joe Citizens" told you what he saw, dissected the coyote & had its stomach contents, had a photo of the attack, and your local biologist said "It's possible." Nope, not good enough for you - after all, you have YEARS of experience NOT seeing anything. I understand...
<font color=blue>But I would probably be more comfortable as a witness for the defense.</font color=blue>
That doesn't surprise me. After all, it appears you are more interested in the "feeling" aspect than the "facts" presented. After all, the only "fact" I've seen anyone dispute is the eyewitness testimony (Nothing about the photo being faked, the stomach contents being falsified, the biologist info being incorrect, etc.) Yep, you'd make the type of juror a defense attorney loves - forget the facts, it's all about feeling...
<font color=blue>Everyone needs to try not to get so steamed up over this. </font color=blue>
I understand your point, why would ANYONE get upset??? /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif
Let's see, basically between you and Trescrows, the comments/actions have been:
(a) everyone who has witnessed such activity and posted it here is a LIAR,
(b) to dismiss any evidence provided (including photos),
(c) come across as incredibly arrogant and holier-than-thou since you fellas OBVIOUSLY know more about running a farm/ranch than those who do it for their livelihood
(d) attacked the integrity of the farming/ranching profession and stated those folks wreck the environment
(e) employed double standards (Trescrows & deer)
(f) stereotyped EVERYONE who believes that a coyote is capable of attacking deer/livestock and therefore chooses to remove them as some uneducated red-neck looking for an excuse to blow something away. (/w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif gosh! that sounds a lot like the argument those
"Aggies do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor do they tolerate those who do." Call me what you like, but I was raised with those values and actually believe in them. To date I have not seen any evidence/motive to convince me that those who have posted their "eyewitness accounts" of coyote attacks on livestock are being dishonest. Refusal to acknowledge even the
remote possibility that such an attack
***could*** occur (regardless of location) strikes me as, if not outright, at least intellectual dishonesty. (I guess, in your book at least, a pit-bull is no more predisposed to have agressive tendencies than, say a Brittany Spaniel.)
Interesting thing about it is that my first post in this thread was simply informational - links to some Parks & Wildlife info and some statistics on stomach contents, along with the comment that I had tons of coyotes on my place. I didn't jump in until YOU GUYS started attacking the integrity of the eyewitnesses -
technically this isn't even my fight - I only spoke up because I hate to see those I believe as "good folks" attacked viciously and without any consideration for
logical discussion.
'Course as Cowboydoc already said, this is probably a futile discussion. After all, you have the "right" to believe whatever you want - nobody can
make you acknowledge anything and facts, well, you have the option to ignore them if you want to for whatever reason you make up. Nope, don't see a lot of intellectually sound "discussion" in the past few posts (all the real info has only been coming from one side.)