PDA

View Full Version : Coyote Trolling??


C01
April 23, 2006, 01:04 PM
I have been training a new hunting dog,my first in several years. We were out in some grass and mixed woodlands and a coyote came after my dog. Bad for coyote longevity by the way. My question is,is this a normal occurence? Seemed very strange to me. The reason I am asking the question is if this is normal coyote behavior I will have to change my off season training weapon to keep my dog safe.
Thank you
Darrell Avery

Vic303
April 23, 2006, 02:41 PM
Time of day? Could it have been a breeding female, or male defending his den with pups? Any sign the coyote was rabid? It is spring, so my guess is the coyote was defending a den of pups...but I would make sure my dog was up to date on ALL shots...

shureshot0471
April 23, 2006, 05:48 PM
Depends there are nemours desieses out there that will make a yote' do things of that sort. But to also see another fur bearing anmial in his terrotary could have a bit to do with it.

BIGRED
April 25, 2006, 07:37 AM
it is normal. Coyotes are very territorial, just like a strange dog comes by your yard and your dog goes nuts trying to get out of the fence to kick / sniff it's butt.

i have seen several shows on TV where they use dogs "as Bait" for Coyote hunting. the dogs are trained to go out and run around and once a Coyote starts the chase then the dog runs back to its master at full trottle. when the Yote' gets close enough enough it gets whacked. Better be a good shot or your dog is going to get chewed up.

Honestly if there is a game animal than there is a type of dog that has been trained to hunt them.
Florida sportsman magazine had an article recently from a guy who raises, breeds, trains dogs to Find & Chase Bobcats. he doesn't kill the cats, just chases & bays them.

leadcounsel
April 25, 2006, 01:21 PM
I was walking my dog off leash in a local creekbed and field area in the fall of 05. I occassionally hear coyotes out there but have never seen one. Don't get too much wildlife in Denver I suppose (we've done a marvelous job of killing pretty much everything). Anyway, walking along I was somewhat started to see a very lean, graceful and beautiful single coyote about 70 yards off to my flank. My dog was off to the other flank about 70 yards and didn't even notice. Anyway, the coyote just watched me with suspicion and trodded off into the distance, occassionally stopping and looking over its shoulder. I thought "what a beautiful animal. I don't know how or why people can shoot them for sheer pleasure." I suppose that's something separates me from many of the TFL'ers. Frankly, I wish I'd see more of them provided they weren't aggressive.

Don't get me wrong, if it became aggressive or attacked then I would shoot in self defense, just like if any predator attacked. But ruthlessly shooting animals just for their existence is not something I condone or enjoy.

Rich Lucibella
April 25, 2006, 03:17 PM
lc-
Coyotes, as a species, are more tenacious than rats and propagate like rabbits. Concerted efforts to wipe them out with guns, poison and traps have all failed, so you needn't worry about them disappearing anytime soon. Their numbers and territories continue to increase.

They are ruthless killers...whether it be ground squirrels, rabbits, birds, calves, cows during childbirth, small deer or elk, or your family poodle, they'll kill it at first opportunity...and they don't do it quickly or gently. For instance, calves are generally fed upon from the genitalia forward, and death can take some time. Coyotes are the leading cause of sheep predation in the west. The one that you saw was probably not "curious" to know what you were doing; he was sizing up a possible meal....your dog!

Since the Wolf eradication programs of earlier years, Coyotes have only one predator: Man. Hunting them for sport may seem cruel; but not to the rancher that has to provide their meals out of his herd or flock; not to the hunter who has seen what they'll do to a newborn calf or cow during birth; and not to the camper who's had his domestic dog packed by these predators.

I don't dislike Coyotes, personally. And I agree some are quite handsome (usually the best fed ones!). But I'll shoot a Coyote at every opportunity and never give a second thought to the moral or ecological ramifications of that act.

Not trying to change your own point of view here; just want to give you a glimpse of the other side.
Rich

leadcounsel
April 25, 2006, 04:04 PM
Speaking of ruthless killers... there seem to be a plethora of the two legged variety that post to this site...

At least the coyote has the courage for a face to face kill and the desire to eat his kill and there is an element of danger for the coyote (that being man and the danger being 24-7 from distances beyond where it can see).

It's nothing personal, but I have no respect for "men" who ruthlessly and mercilessly destroy mother nature on our whims at a distance. I would have some respect if you killed the animal with your bare hands, not at 50 yards with a scoped rifle.

I've made my viewpoints known on other posts, but to reiterate the problem is that "man" fails to understand that he must learn to cohabitate peacefully with nature. The days of foolishness and waste should be behind us because we should have learned from our ancestors foolishness. Unfortunately learning from mistakes is something most fail to do. It's that foolish, shortsighted and wasteful attitude which has led to the near extinction and extinction of countless valuable animals and the destruction of many natural habitats.

As we kill the larger species in the food chain, the smaller ones tend to overpopulate. This forces "men" to solve this problem and the solution invariably is "well, better go kill something else." At what point does this insanity bloodbath end? When there are no more critters? Wolves eat coyotes. We killed the wolves. Coyotes overpopulate. Coyotes eat rabbits and prarie dogs and rats etc. We kill the coyotes and now varmints overpopulate. At what point do we stop?

I think it just boils down to the fact that some "men" like the rush of power they get from taking a life. Shooting an unprotected animal that presents no danger to a man for a sport is the most cowardice and lazy act that I can imagine. It's cowardice because it's akin to a sucker punch in a bar fight. It's lazy because it requires minimal skill and no effort.

For the record I have no objection to legit hunting and ethical kills. I am a carnivore and eat prepared meat. I'm not some ignorant bleeding heart. I am just opposed to the waste of life, which is a precious gift to any creature, whether you feel its pain or not.

C01
April 25, 2006, 05:49 PM
Thanks for the replies. I have never varmit hunted but also never go into the woods unarmed. This Coyote was definately after my dog as a snack. Not going to happen. I spend a lot of time outdoors dog training and see quite a few in almost every type of environment. So I was'nt too broken up about shooting this one. In an area like this ,Eastern Washington,what keeps the population of Coyotes in check? Seems to me that we have eliminated most of the natural predators and that leaves only one to keep the populations in line.
Does anybody know any rough information on the damage they do to the game bird populations?

Thanks

D Avery

Fat White Boy
April 25, 2006, 08:15 PM
I saw a great video about hunting coyotes using dogs in Wyoming. The hunters would locate an area where they could hear coyotes. They would release their dogs and the coyotes would chase the dogs back to the hunters. Sometimes the 'yotes would come within 10 yards of the hunters, they were so intent on the dogs. THe video also showed a sheep rancher. He showed the hunters 3 dead lambs that weren't even eaten. They had been killed by coyotes, training their young to kill.....

Csspecs
April 25, 2006, 09:37 PM
I don't see how anything really ever kept the coyotes in check. Maybe wolfs but they are just a larger coyote, so that does not help all that much.

There is a point that coyote start getting a bit to active by people. At that point a few need to be removed from the pack and sent to "the big rabbit farm up in the sky". I am seeing and hearing a few to many around the area I hunt to be happy with just a bow.

Good to hear that one did not kill your dog.

lizziedog1
April 25, 2006, 10:09 PM
I was watching one of those nature shows about Yellowstone. They said that after the wolves were reintroduced, the coyote numbers went down. Also, the coyotes had started to pack hunt like wolves. But when the wolves arrived, the coyotes went back to being solitary scavengers.

There was video footage of wolves and coyotes near each other. The size difference is huge. There are some wolves that tolerate coyotes around and some that do not. They showed this one female wolf that was nicknamed the coyote assasin. Any coyote that came near her pack would cause her to bee-line to it in full rage. Of course, the rest of the pack would follow to back her up. They would rend a coyote in seconds. They actually showed one such attack. Believe me, it wasn't too pretty for the coyote.

20cows
April 26, 2006, 01:05 PM
I've known folks that lived out in the desert country of West Texas that couldn't keep a pet cat or dog. They kept ending up coyote food.

Rich Lucibella
April 26, 2006, 04:03 PM
LeadCounsel-
Don't kid yourself...Man is not the only creature that kills for sport rather than food. Coyotes do it also; so do Wolves...ask any cattle or sheep rancher...or any true Naturalist.

This idea that if we just "left them all alone", a blissful balance would be struck, is a noble one, though quite naive. Reintroduction of the Wolf has decimated Elk Herds in parts of Canada and the northern US after decades of healthy herd growth, that growth due mainly to hunter actions and license fees. Is that "nature's balance"? I don't know. I do know that the birthing Elk Cow is more defenseless against a Wolf pack than a Coyote is against a man with a rifle.

Man is a part of the environment. To the extent that we've already upset the "balance" with our demand for roads, homes, farms, ranches, playgrounds, parking lots, movie theaters and super-highways we already have taken on the burden of managing these populations.

The vast majority of all funds for Wildlife Conservation comes from hunting groups and hunting fees. "Why can't we all just get along" works only if you're willing to abandon your home, car, neighborhood and city....move to a tent in the wilderness killing only what you need for subsistence. That's Mother Nature's way (assuming we ignore the fact that she placed Man here also). So long as you demand goods and services, luxury items and necessities you kill more Coyote habitat than I ever could with the muzzle of a rifle.

YMMV.
Out here.
Rich

Art Eatman
April 26, 2006, 04:42 PM
Rich, forget it. leadcounsel doesn't care about facts, per two other threads where many people have spent a fair amount of time trying to explain ecological realities.

Kill for fun? Feral house cats will outdo any serial killer ever known to mankind. I've seen the remains of an entire covey of quail, done in by a house cat. Maybe one was eaten.

For that matter, a hawksbill shrike will start eating a quail while it's still alive. I've seen that, also.

I still say the biggest enemies of rational wildlife management were Felix Salter and Walt Disney. Well, maybe include Rousseau...

Art

jhgreasemonkey
April 26, 2006, 05:07 PM
Leadcounsil may want to move to Fairytopia where all the unicorns live in a world of mystical harmony. Since when is it ruthless to shoot vermin? I guess I am just beating a dead horse here. Rich said it all.

swampdog
April 26, 2006, 05:44 PM
We have something called a red wolf here in North Carolina. Here is a qoute from

http://www.fws.gov/alligatorriver/redwolf.html

"An estimated 100 red wolves roam the wilds of northeastern North Carolina and another 150 comprise the captive breeding program, still an essential element of red wolf recovery. Interbreeding with the coyote (an exotic species not native to North Carolina) has been recognized as the most significant and detrimental threat affecting recovery of red wolves in their native habitat. Currently, adaptive management efforts are making good progress in reducing the threat of coyotes while building the wild red wolf population in northeastern North Carolina."

The adaptive management efforts include an open season with no bag limits.
Electronic calls are forbidden here for every species except coyote and crow. I wonder why?

I look forward to your comments on how "unethical" coyote hunting is in North Carolina, leadcounsel. I'm sure they will be as "enlightened" as your comments on nutria hunting , another detrimental "exotic species not native to North Carolina".

To the original poster,
Thanks to you, I have finally found a use for my Mom's Shih Tzu. I wonder if she'd mind if I started taking it for walks. :D She's mean enough to give a coyote a run for their money. (the dog, not my Mom.)

leadcounsel
April 27, 2006, 12:20 AM
Many of those that sport shoot coyotes or rabbits or whatever may claim that it's for some noble cause... some are legit. I think you would be naive to believe that there aren't some folks who just enjoy it for the sheer rush, or maybe it's just boredom or low self esteem... psychology is a funny thing.

I have acknowledged that by my mere existence creatures die. They die for my food; they die for my housing; they die for my transportation; and they die so that I may shop, watch movies, use bleach as a cleaning product, etc. Here's the difference: I try to avoid "consumerism" as much as possible and I don't enjoy the fact that I'm taking creatures lives.

That said, I've NEVER intentionally killed anything breathing creature for the enjoyment of it or just because I could. If I ever have killed a living breathing creature it was incidental, accidental, or truly necessary (as opposed to whimsical).

Finally, humans don't get a pass by animalistic behavior in society. The fact that animals kill for sport is immaterial. We're logical thinking beings who understand the ecosystem. Further, a single coyote can't kill 14,000 rabbits in a night.... the few it kills don't affect the ecosystem. Contrast that with some yahoos with rifles out blastin' away at as many coyotes or rabbits or whatever that are arbitrarily on the horizon. And, the coyote may be practicing his TRUE hunting skills for which his survival depends when he stalks and kills for sport. He is using his muscles, keen senses, balance, dexterity, silent stalking skills, and ultimately his fighting and killing skills, taking down his prey and killing it efficiently. Contrast that with the yahoos in the back up pickup trucks shinning rabbits, deer, coyotes, you name it... or how about the skillful and couragous sportsman who slugs beers whilst sitting in a deer blind all day, only to see and spot the prize coyotes in the field. He boldly raises his $1500 +/- rifle with 3x9 scope, raises it and rests it on a limb for balance, clicks off the safety, gathers his target in his illumiated crosshairs, takes a breath, and with all his might and coordination sqeezes that 2 pound trigger. Wow, I'm impressed at how that man has really improved his profound sport hunting skills. Then he goes home, swinging by McDonalds for a super size meal on the way, to catch the highlights of the baseball game on ESPN whilst enjoying a cold brew....

Difference? If you can't see the differences I can't demonstrate them any more clearly.

Wisby
April 27, 2006, 02:23 AM
Enough Reason for me...

http://www.varmintal.com/attac.htm

And From a Tree Hugger's View Point can I say Tree Hugger I don't mean to offend anyone by saying Tree Hugger...

http://www.naturalhistory.bc.ca/VNHS/Discovery/OldIssues/Discovery%2030-1%20Article.htm

Another Animal I shoot on Sight now is Wild Hogs...

stevelyn
April 27, 2006, 08:12 AM
Rich,

You hold the same sentiments about coyotes as a lot of us up here in AK hold for the wolves.
Wolves when they're running in packs will kill an adult moose about every three days and even more caribou if they're around. They've pretty much decimated the moose population in the Kuskokwim Valley because our spineless former governor capitulated to the eco-nazis.

Now ADF&G has been trying to play catch-up on predator control and the eco-nazis are still doing everything they can to halt it. Even with help from the trappers and hunters it'll be quite a few years before the moose population recovers. The sad part of it is that most of the folks living out in that area heavily depend on the moose as a food source.

I have no problem whacking any wolf I see and will run them down with a snowmachine when I can. I don't dislike wolves either. I love listening to them on cold nights, but they are competitors for food resources and there are too many of them right now.

We have a couple slogans up here: Eat Moose, Wear Wolf.....or Eat Moose, Starve A Wolf.:D

Coyotes are expanding their range up here too. Two years ago I attended a police firearms instructor class. One of my classmate worked for ADF&G. He told me coyotes were expanding their range down this way. Well about a month ago one showed up. Someone shot him and left him:mad: , but we ID'd him as a coyote. I welcome them down here as I hunt and trap fur and see the coyote as another fur resource. I also know that if they're not kept in check it could be bad news for the caribou heard.

MEDDAC19
April 27, 2006, 10:17 AM
As long as lead continues to think of Man separately from Nature he'll never get it. I'm sure he still erroneously believes that the indigenous tribes that lived here were, at one with, or to quote him cohabitated peacefully with nature. Just a little knowledge of how ecosystems work would surely correct your thoughts lead. Indians caused incredible ecological damages, but still seem to be the poster child of people with your natural viewpoint.

I have a little bit more than the an average knowledge of biology and really get discouraged when I read propaganda repeated by you as if it were factual. Every species on the planet got its' niche by displacement or erradication of another weaker species that previously occupied that spot. Many by eating all the competition.

Plants use herbicides to kill other competing plants, some are toxic to consume, probably where man got the ideas. Beavers flood an area displacing or killing every terrestrial thing that had been living there. Once they kill all the local vegetation they abandon the site and move on.

Over 95% of all the living oganisms since the start of this planet have become extinct. Man has not been around for most of it. The natural order of things is dynamic, there is no true balance. New things come along and fill in as the old ones leave. If there was a true balance nothing would change, the dinosaurs would still be around and so would cavemen.

Time is very relative in the natural order of things, just ask a rock. Humans have barely even existed when you think of time that way.

roy reali
April 27, 2006, 10:31 AM
Great response!

Some folks think that Bambi is a documentary.

Art Eatman
April 27, 2006, 11:13 AM
I've had to deal with people who have opinions like leadcounsel's for several decades. Assuming from his "handle" that he's an attorney, I think the following applies:

He'd take pride in defending his clients' interests. Whether preparing a legal brief or a will, or representing his client in court, he'd work hard to do a good job. He'd take pride in work well done. He also knows that if he doesn't have clients he'd get kicked out of his office for not paying the rent, or lose his home for not making the payments.

A farmer or rancher is in the identical position: He, his family and his stock or crops are the clients. His efforts support them so he can meet his financial obligations. He deals with pests--be they locusts or coyotes or prairie dogs or rabbits--as part of protecting his clients' interests. To have a guest hunter deal with overabundance of certain species of pestiferous wildlife relieves the farmer/rancher of work which could well interfere with remunerative efforts. If said hunter will pay for the privilege of trespass, the farmer/rancher is ahead of the game of "Pay your bills".

I've never understood why city people find that so difficult to comprehend. "If you eat food, you're involved in agriculture."

Art

leadcounsel
April 27, 2006, 11:20 AM
MEDDAC19:
As long as lead continues to think of Man separately from Nature he'll never get it. I'm sure he still erroneously believes that the indigenous tribes that lived here were, at one with, or to quote him cohabitated peacefully with nature. Just a little knowledge of how ecosystems work would surely correct your thoughts lead. Indians caused incredible ecological damages, but still seem to be the poster child of people with your natural viewpoint.


Someone with such all encompassing knowledge SHOULD know that indigenous people in N. America are technically called NATIVE AMERICANS and not INDIANS... and I suspect that they left slightly smaller of a permanent footprint than white man has with our thirst for destruction.

Rich Lucibella
April 27, 2006, 12:35 PM
indigenous people in N. America are technically called NATIVE AMERICANS and not INDIANS
From your keyboard to God's Ear. Someone should let the various Indian Nations know of this political faux pas, though. They portray themselves in such a degrading manner by using the word "Indian". :rolleyes:

http://oneida-nation.net/
http://www.sni.org/
http://www.fsin.com/
http://www.nativeamericans.com/IndianNations.htm
http://indiannations.visitmt.com/

they left slightly smaller of a permanent footprint than white manI take personal umbrage at this description. "White Man" is a derogatory term which directors forced Native Americans to utter in cowboy flicks. I am NOT a White Man....I am a Caucasion. [Double :rolleyes:]

Rich

Superhornet
April 27, 2006, 12:38 PM
LC-----In 1492 they were called Indians......when PC become vogue with the liberals, lawyers and ACLU they were called Native Americans.

Trip20
April 27, 2006, 12:39 PM
...they left slightly smaller of a permanent footprint than white man has with our thirst for destruction.

You're absolutely out of hand, leadcounsel. You have such disdain towards your own species. Is there a psychological term for this? Anyone?

In the other threads with similar topic, your contempt for your own species jumps out like a neon sign. It's very noticeable even behind drivel such as "thirst for destruction" and other emotionally charged terms.

You've mentioned that varmint hunters consist of many who do it for sheer pleasure of the kill, or because they have low self-esteem... you gave a few other ridiculous reasons.

Same/similar arguments are made against gun owners.

Think about your arguments and broad generalizations of varmint hunters. Then think about how you disagree with people who make the same broad generalizations about gun owners. You disgree with broad generalizations about gun owners because you know they are false, based on emotion, and not applicable in reality.

Right now, you are talking to bunch of "gun nuts" as if you are "Sarah Brady". That's how you sound. Give it some thought.

MEDDAC19
April 27, 2006, 12:42 PM
I have enough all encompassing knowledge to know that PC speech is just silly, not technically correct. I guess if you want to be technically correct they would be Only Native Because They Got Here Before White Men but are Really Asian Expatriot Americans. There are still places that exhibit the affects the indians had on this land and they did it while still a primitive culture. Must have struck a nerve for the personal attack.

Note: The indians inhabited less than, what, maybe 5% of the North American continent. Kind of an apples to oranges arguement.

Rich Lucibella
April 27, 2006, 02:30 PM
Folks-
This directed at a post I just deleted:
LeadCounsel's opinion may be of little value to some, but personal attacks are not tolerated at TFL. IOW, attack the argument if you wish. Attack the Man and the fight becomes mine....this goes for both sides.
Rich

Art Eatman
April 27, 2006, 03:57 PM
"...and I suspect that they left slightly smaller of a permanent footprint than white man has with our thirst for destruction."

leadcounsel, will you be the one to select the 297 million or thereabouts whom you would kill in order to bring the US population back, roughly, to a circa-1500 AD level? Thus reducing that "footprint"?

Immigrants from every country in the world live here, making those footprints. AmerInds as well as Indians from India--or indigenous people from the Americas who are also referred to as Indians. (In Mexico, the Mexican appellation is "Indios".) They all live in houses, mobile homes and travel trailers. They all eat food. They all travel on paved highways as well as dirt roads. But you'll find the same style in every developed country, and it's on the rise in the developing countries.

Some activities are common throughout the history of Homo Sap. In what's now the U.S., there was inter-tribal warfare, thievery and slavery. The archaeologists claim that the extinction of certain species was due to the hunting processes of indigenous people.

That a limited number of primitive people made a smaller footprint upon the landscape than European settlers and their offspring is beyond question. However, that's absolutely irrelevant to the year 2006. You cannot dance back the buffalo.

leadcounsel, you have made numerous statements of opinion without any substantiation. You do not answer questions. Your responses are merely more of the same pattern of rhetoric. That fits in with the definition of trollish behavior, and is not polite Internet discourse. I strongly urge you to change your ways in this regard.

Art

jhgreasemonkey
April 27, 2006, 06:21 PM
You have such disdain towards your own species. Is there a psychological term for this? Anyone?

I believe the phycological term would be "self hater" for someone who does this. I dont think its cool to degrade race. Men of all races have been responsible for destruction and sensless killing in america. Man. Not just the white man. A person would be labeled a racist if he were to make that statement about any other race so why not the white race as well? And on the topic of sensless killing and destruction if you have ever lived on a farm you can understand the need to eliminate coyotees, etc. It is not sensless. It is necesity.

RsqVet
April 27, 2006, 06:42 PM
ON topic if you will --- coyote attacks are fairly common here in AZ --- I treat maybe 1 every 6 weeks or so as an emergency vet and see maybe 1 a month or more come through the clinic --- offten are smaller dogs that are less capible of self defense, often being walked on those 30 foot retratable lead things through the washes or more wild parts of town or simply left unattended outside, have seen cattle dog sized dog attacked as well, never anything lab / German Shep sized or larger though I will not say it can't happen, form working with yotes I suspect they have the sense to only pick fights they think they can win, the coyote attack wounds are usually extensive and severe these guys are hunting for food and or defending their turf / home / family, few dog on dog attacks are quite so severe in their wound patterns.

I'm not gona touch the rest of this thread,

swampdog
April 27, 2006, 06:44 PM
That fits in with the definition of trollish behavior, and is not polite Internet discourse.


For a "bunch of ignorant rednecks" and "ruthless killers", I think the folks on this forum have shown remarkable restraint. I have been very active on linux forums for many years. I can guarantee you that the dreaded "T" word would have been mentioned much earlier and in a much more hostile manner than has been the case here. It must be true, an armed society is a REALLY polite society.

Rich Lucibella
April 27, 2006, 10:24 PM
For a "bunch of ignorant rednecks" and "ruthless killers", I think the folks on this forum have shown remarkable restraint.
Amen to that, and thanks to most for that restraint.
Rich

Superhornet
April 28, 2006, 06:52 AM
I would suspect there are many "Rednecks" on this forum. If the term Redneck means from a specific geographical location then I am guilty. I am a southerner, harvest only what I am going to eat, and do not shoot anything that I can't consume..............or...........that mother nature needs a little help with in "Balancing Nature". Once in a while she does call on me to help keep a few coyotes and plains pups in check. Since she has always provided for me I always help her out. That great movie produced many years ago, "Bambi", started an anthropomorphic movement which continues today and is a cause for much misunderstanding on how the real world operates.. There are only two elements in this world, and it applies to humans as well as animals........there is prey and there are those who prey on prey. I choose not to be prey...

stevelyn
April 28, 2006, 08:25 AM
.....indigenous people in N. America are technically called NATIVE AMERICANS not INDIANS.

Unless you hang with the militant AIM crowd, none of the indians I know refer to themselves as Native Americans.
I've lived in bush Alaska for 13 years. My gf is a Koyukon Athabascan Indian and refers to herself as such.
Ocassionally she'll use the term "Alaska Native" when speaking of indigenous Alaskans in general.
But be rest assured, when outsiders start lumping indians and eskimos and Aleuts in the same bunch they'll be quickly corrected and she'll distance herself by asserting her indian heritage....not native.

leadcounsel
April 28, 2006, 09:21 AM
For the record, I never called anyone an "ignorant redneck." That's your own inference.

As far as putting me in the same camp as Sarah Brady, little could offend ME more. I fully believe in our inalienable right to keep and bear arms of military grade, without restriction. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You and I are allied in this cause, let's not forget that important fact. However, can someone point to the phrase that discusses the wholesale slaugter of "varmints"? Or is that the "security of a free state?" Maybe it's "national security" as everything else seems to be these days...

Further, when you look at a coyote, fish, shark, wolf, prarie dog, apes, chimps, or rabbits what you see as an annoyance or varmint I see as a wonder of nature; a beautiful creature that has a complex neuroligical and respiratory system that is a being capable of living, breathing, eating, digesting, simple thought, instinct, complex muscle and motor movements, and feeling (particularly pain). The fact that you are capable of higher thought doesn't give you the ethical or moral right to terminate that life because it annoys you; instead it gives you the ethical and moral duty to figure out how to coexist with that creature as best you can. It cannot think coherently or change its instinct to NOT kill your sheep or eat your plants. Therefore, it is OUR duty to figure out how to shift its behavior without resorting to slaughtering it.

Point taken that "white man" is not soley responsible for the destruction that Man in general is responsible for. It's simply that as Man develops more, he doesn't seem to know when to call it quits and stop developing. When is too much nuclear waste, mercury, cianide, styrofoam, plastic and other permanent garbage enough?

As far as "hating" Man, that can't be farther from the truth. I think "Man" is an amazing species and one I am frequently proud to be a part of. I am proud of our collective and individual accomplishments, capacity for intelligent and logical though, capacity for compassion (which no other creature possesses), generosity, and a host of other good qualities. I don't see the incompassionate destruction of nature, which MAN has done since the dawn of time (not just in the current times) as a positive quality.

The qualities I'm NOT proud of include lack of compassion for the survivial of individual or collective species of living, breathing, feeling animals which have their own survival instincts, particulary when the life of an animal could be saved but for the greed, profit, etc that could be curbed if MAN wasn't so wasteful with "our" -- which is debatable -- resources.

Here's a for instance as to how our waste leads to unnecessary environmental destruction as a small daily reminder of our waste. Every day I take handfuls of paper garbage from my mailbox, which I've requested to have deliver stopped. That garbage was created by cutting down fantastic trees in the Pacific Northwest (yes, I know there are new trees planted, but that landscape where they have cut the trees down is an eyesore). For that daily handful of garbage, countless animals which made their habitat in htat forest were needlessly killed. The chemicals we pour into the wood pulp to make bleached paper ultimately end up in the lakes, rivers, and oceans suffocating and poisoning our sealife. And guess what, most of that garbage is not recycleable so ends up in a landfill, wasting land (which forces us to push more animals from their habitat.

Another example of Mans wasteful attitude. Here in Denver and surrounding cities Man has recently passed "anti-pitbull" legislation. Our leaders have determined, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (indicating that nationwide attacks by this breed are nor statistically significant nor larger than many other breeds, and that any dog can be trained to fight and be vicious, and that it's the owners' fault and not the dogs' fault -- sound familiar to the gun control debate?), that any dog that looks like a pit bull (there are several "pit bull" breeds) is effectively given a death sentence with few pracital options. Doesn't matter the dogs age (pups and 15 year old dogs included), its individual assessment for behavior, etc. Hundreds or maybe thousands of dogs were euthanized.... Why? Thank the media for making a few pit bull attacks headline news and thank the legislature for being ignorant, wasteful, and short sighted.

As a thinking, emoting, rational being, I cannot help feeling the individual PAIN that animals must endure for our collective and independent short sighted, ignorant, foolish decisions which have driven animals such as great white sharks, whales, wolves, polar bears, apes, chimps, and hundreds of species into extinction or near extinction.

Art Eatman
April 28, 2006, 10:47 AM
"As a thinking, emoting, rational being, I cannot help feeling the individual PAIN that animals must endure for our collective and independent short sighted, ignorant, foolish decisions which have driven animals such as great white sharks, whales, wolves, polar bears, apes, chimps, and hundreds of species into extinction or near extinction."

That's a blast a homo sap in general. It does not apply to all people. It danged sure doesn't apply to those of us who frequent this website. Or over at THR, for that matter. IOW, you've been generalizing against events of which none of us are--or was--a part.

FWIW, I was an original proponent of the Endangered Species Act. leadcounsel, where were you in the 1960s?

Coyotes are a known pest. They attack small children on infrequent occasions. They attack domestic pets. They attack domestic livestock. They don't restrict themselves to rabbits, mice and birds, even though those are the most common elements in their diet.

The issue is not the elimination of coyotes as a species. It is control of the numbers in particular locations in order to reduce depredations upon people's interests.

I note that the coyote has expanded his territory into all the lower 48 states, which is more than double his known habitat area of the 1700s/1800s when he was first called the "prairie wolf" and first seen in the western edges of the then-U.S. Essentially, west of the Mississippi River.

Art

Superhornet
April 28, 2006, 10:55 AM
LC---begging to differ with you but, on the Varmit hunting or the Easter Bunny thread you did infer, REDNECKS. A good lawyer should always know what he has written or said.....IMHO

leadcounsel
April 28, 2006, 11:00 AM
Art -- the coyote has spread because we've pushed it to migrate or introduced it into other areas. Hardly the fault of the coyote, or the one that's born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure, the "varmint" hunters here may have never directly killed a chimp or a shark, but it's the wasteful attitude that I'm against...

And in the 60's I wasn't even an itch in my daddy's pants yet :-)

garryc
April 28, 2006, 11:06 AM
You know something leadcounsel, Some of us get really tired of your repetitive rhetoric. If you don't like hunting then stay the hell out of the hunting area. Many of us find you to be a royal pain in the A## when you come marching into a discussion and muck it up with your disruption. I don't like it, most of them don't like it, SO FREAKING STOP IT!!
What if that was your dog about to be attacked, would you shoot the coyote. If you would then you would be a Hypocrite because by the very logic you apply here the coyote is just acting within its own nature and you dog is in his environment and therefore PREY!!. Likewise with some child or hiker who, including YOUR buddies and YOUR children, who could not defend themselves. Can't hunt down the offending animal for acting within its nature, now can you?

Shorthair
April 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
You're absolutely out of hand, leadcounsel. You have such disdain towards your own species. Is there a psychological term for this? Anyone?

One who hates or mistrusts humankind (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misanthrope)

This seems important. In spite of his protestations to the contrary, we have witnessed several threads wherein LC takes a distinctly anti-human perspective regarding a belief in the responsibility to manage populations of animals deemed destructive to local ecosytems.
LC and others who believe that we have no business participating in the management of our local fauna seem to argue from an emotional rather than intellectual perspective. I say this because while many have offered evidence to illustrate the reason behind the practice, there has been a significant demonstration of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter on LC's part. Indeed, such evidence is mostly ignored rather than addressed.
The fact that you are capable of higher thought doesn't give you the ethical or moral right to terminate that life because it annoys you; instead it gives you the ethical and moral duty to figure out how to coexist with that creature as best you can.
We aren't talking about killing on the basis of annoyance, we are talking about exercising a necessity.
It cannot think coherently or change its instinct to NOT kill your sheep or eat your plants. Therefore, it is OUR duty to figure out how to shift its behavior without resorting to slaughtering it.
I don't follow the logic in the statement (non-sequitor) above. You state that an animal behaves strictly on instinct and is therefore incapable of changing its behavior, you then exhort us to "figure out how to shift its behavior".
These individuals equate the practice of modern, managed, legitimate pest control with the extinction of the dodo and passenger pigeon. They assume this practice is conducted on the basis of blood lust alone, associating it often to sexual or emotional immaturity or mental illness. They also believe there is greater value in the life of individual animals than in our right to manage those populations. In this regard, LC seems to simply be a mouthpiece for PETA.
I for one feel no inherent pleasure when any animal dies at my hand, though I consider such killing sometimes necessary even when I wouldn't consider eating or wearing it.
This is not intended as a personal attack, it is an attempt to better understand and frame that perspective. Please let me know if I miss the mark, LC.

Rich Lucibella
April 28, 2006, 11:14 AM
When is too much nuclear waste, mercury, cianide, styrofoam, plastic and other permanent garbage enough?
Query:
When did you decide that you'd enjoyed enough conspicuous consumption; that you'd go back to basics requiring only those items necessary for a simple existence? How old is your auto? How many does the family have? Are you heating with oil or gas? Do you read at night by electric light?

My point is that one cannot preach from the "high moral ground" unless one lives on that ground.
Rich Lucibella-
Actively protecting bunnies and ground squirrels nationwide, one dead Coyote at a time!

garryc
April 28, 2006, 11:44 AM
Query:
When did you decide that you'd enjoyed enough conspicuous consumption; that you'd go back to basics requiring only those items necessary for a simple existence? How old is your auto? How many does the family have? Are you heating with oil or gas? Do you read at night by electric light?

Rich, Rich, Rich, Do you know what actually happens when people of his mind set touch reality, it ain't purdy

Shorthair
April 28, 2006, 11:44 AM
That garbage was created by cutting down fantastic trees in the Pacific Northwest (yes, I know there are new trees planted, but that landscape where they have cut the trees down is an eyesore). For that daily handful of garbage, countless animals which made their habitat in htat forest were needlessly killed.

More, dare I say, emotional ranting. I hate to see the loss of any more old growth forest, but most of the "garbage" you are getting in the mail is from managed forests. I would think it most unprofitable to cut down valuable redwood and turn it into paper pulp.
How paper is made in the Northwest (and just about everywhere else...) (http://www.idahoforests.org/paprmake.htm)

Forest management is good for the land:
North Carolina (http://www.ncforestry.org/docs/Mgmt/index.htm), Ontario, Canada (http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on.ca/mftip.cfm), Tennessee (http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/pbfiles/pb1574.pdf), California (http://www.calforests.org/)

Managed forests are good for animals, too:
Ruffed Grouse Society (http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/index.asp)

And coyotes are amazingly adaptable:
Chicago (http://dnr.state.il.us/orc/wildlife/virtual_news/releases/070104_coyotes.htm), New York (http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/coyinny.htm), Ohio (http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/resources/wildnotes/pub376.htm), Detroit (http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0510/03/A01-335321.htm), near the intersection of 13th and Yukon Street in Vancouver (http://www.stanleyparkecology.ca/programs/urbanWildlife/coyotes/sightings/)

Maybe they're just there for the restaurants.

Superhornet
April 28, 2006, 02:04 PM
Gentlemen, there are always to sides to any debate. We have one opinion on how the world turns and Mr. leadcounsel has another. We expound on how we see nature and the world and of course he counters with how he sees it. Neither will convince the other that the opposite is true, nor will we convince enough to change our way or his way of thinking....and....that is what is good about debate...PLEASE stop asking him to leave...I like it........Only in AMERICA.....

Rich Lucibella
April 28, 2006, 02:26 PM
SuperHornet-
I agree to a point. That point ends where emotionalism, generalization and failure to provide sources begins.

This one's done. Part Deux welcomed, to the extent it comports with the original premise of the thread.
Rich