The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Coinneach · May 17, 2000, 10:06 AM

I asked John-Henry (of Vic and John-Henry, the Coyote Gods) to comment.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Well:

I would tend to agree with the idea that a ranging, loose-foot coyote MIGHT be less prone to livestock predation, as opposed to a denned pair with pups to feed.

Of course, stock predation usually originates with a coyote that is crippled
in some fashion (trap, automobile, bullet) that makes it turn to lambs as opposed to jackrabbits, or calves as opposed to cottontails. From there stock predation is taught by that coyote (usually a bitch, according to Jim Lackey) to her pups, so you end up with an exponential progression as that behavior is spread through the population.

This is no new idea, by the way; it's just a re-packaging by the AR groups. The single most misleading thing in that article is this (unless something has changed, but I don't think so) the thing that they want the coyote to eat is not "birth control" in the classic sense of a substance that interferes with ovulation; it's an abortifacent, which causes them to either spontaneously abort the embryos or to re-absorb them in the womb.

They dumped tens of thousands of drop baits laced with this stuff from airplanes in past years, when ADC first began to seek out alternative population control methods, but several things became apparent; they
wouldn't eat it with any regularity, as the article says; the abortion aspect was unpalatable (what's the difference between killing a pup in a den burrow and killing it in the womb?); and it wasn't coyote-specific,
(although I don't know if it was canine-specific) so it acted on (at least) the foxes and domestic dogs as well as the coyotes.

ADC is under tremendous pressure to advocate alternative methods of predation control, and I sympathize with them; it's their jobs that are on the line if Congress decides to one year reduce their funding to zero, and
the pressure is on to do exactly that each session.

My best guess is that it ultimately won't make much difference; any given coyote can turn stock-killer (or dog killer, or cat killer, or chicken killer, or what have you) and at that point targeted (lethal) removal is the only solution that I'm aware of.

The modern paradigm is heavily weighted against lethal control methods in our contemporary feel-good society; unfortunately no one has successfully
communicated that new paradigm to the coyotes and other livestock predators.

John-Henry
[/quote]

Gee, and I thought hunters in general and varminters in particular were a bunch of illiterate, inbred rednecks...

May 17, 2000, 10:06 AM	#8
Coinneach Staff Alumnus Join Date: February 23, 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,272	I asked John-Henry (of Vic and John-Henry, the Coyote Gods) to comment. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Well: I would tend to agree with the idea that a ranging, loose-foot coyote MIGHT be less prone to livestock predation, as opposed to a denned pair with pups to feed. Of course, stock predation usually originates with a coyote that is crippled in some fashion (trap, automobile, bullet) that makes it turn to lambs as opposed to jackrabbits, or calves as opposed to cottontails. From there stock predation is taught by that coyote (usually a bitch, according to Jim Lackey) to her pups, so you end up with an exponential progression as that behavior is spread through the population. This is no new idea, by the way; it's just a re-packaging by the AR groups. The single most misleading thing in that article is this (unless something has changed, but I don't think so) the thing that they want the coyote to eat is not "birth control" in the classic sense of a substance that interferes with ovulation; it's an abortifacent, which causes them to either spontaneously abort the embryos or to re-absorb them in the womb. They dumped tens of thousands of drop baits laced with this stuff from airplanes in past years, when ADC first began to seek out alternative population control methods, but several things became apparent; they wouldn't eat it with any regularity, as the article says; the abortion aspect was unpalatable (what's the difference between killing a pup in a den burrow and killing it in the womb?); and it wasn't coyote-specific, (although I don't know if it was canine-specific) so it acted on (at least) the foxes and domestic dogs as well as the coyotes. ADC is under tremendous pressure to advocate alternative methods of predation control, and I sympathize with them; it's their jobs that are on the line if Congress decides to one year reduce their funding to zero, and the pressure is on to do exactly that each session. My best guess is that it ultimately won't make much difference; any given coyote can turn stock-killer (or dog killer, or cat killer, or chicken killer, or what have you) and at that point targeted (lethal) removal is the only solution that I'm aware of. The modern paradigm is heavily weighted against lethal control methods in our contemporary feel-good society; unfortunately no one has successfully communicated that new paradigm to the coyotes and other livestock predators. John-Henry [/quote] Gee, and I thought hunters in general and varminters in particular were a bunch of illiterate, inbred rednecks...