Here are some greyhounds coursing a coyote:
What raised this question was this piece in the New York Times. (Hat tip to Patti S for sending it my way).
The question that was raised in the piece is one that will surely launch discussion on this blog:
Is coyote coursing dog fighting?
Some facts:
- Coyotes are very closely related to dogs. They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. (Photos of captive hybrids are here).
- However, they are clearly different species. Coyote and dog hybrids are not always fertile. Breeding coydog to coydog results in puppies that are infertile within three generations.
- Coyotes and dogs have different body language. Coyotes have a threat gape that domestic dogs and wolves don’t have. I’ve read that New Guinea singing dogs might use the threat gape, but I’ve not read any confirmation of it in the literature.
- Dogs usually hate coyotes. Even dogs that love other dogs seem to hate everything about them. I’ve heard of regular large domestic dogs killing coyotes, and coyote hunting with hounds is becoming as popular as fox hunting with hounds where I live.
- Coyotes usually hate dogs– or really like them. Those that like dogs usually like the smaller ones, and they like them only as a food source.
- Because coyotes and dogs are variable animals, their behavior is not written in stone. Some coyotes love playing with dogs. (See this video and this one. Please ignore the comments on that second one that say that the coyote is “luring” the dog to its death. That can happen, but how often it happens is a good question. My guess is more dogs kill coyotes in this county than the other way around. Coyotes are normally scared to death of domestic dogs– and yes, I live near a forest that is full of coyotes and I haven’t lost a dog yet.)
Now, the problem with counting coyote coursing as dog fighting is that I don’t think we can call coyotes dogs.
And I don’t think we can call it fighting.
The greyhounds and longdogs used in coyote coursing are engaging in predatory behavior, exactly the same behavior that wolves display toward coyotes.
Wolves and coyotes do hybridize, but it generally happens only when wolf populations are very low. In the wild, the only matings between wolves and coyotes occur between dog wolves and bitch coyotes. Female wolves have no interest in mating with coyotes.
But even at the taxonomic level, I am not sure we can even call this fighting at all.
The coyotes can get away– and often do.
And element of fair chase exists here.
And if coyote coursing is banned, what happens to the owners of some free roaming dogs who decide to kill a coyote?
In the rural parts of the country, free roaming dogs are the rule, not the exception.
Coursing does have some advantages. It probably does not significantly reduce the coyote population, but it teaches coyotes to fear dogs and people. Those that get away learn that large dogs will kill them.
Ranchers who use livestock guardian dogs probably benefit from the fact that greyhounds and longdogs have trained the coyotes to fear domestic canines. I know that my dogs don’t have much to fear from coyotes, simply because foxhounds have taught the local coyotes the same lesson.
I don’t think we consider these aspects when we talk about banning hunting methods. The states that have banned cougar hunting with hounds have also seen cougars reconsider their relationship with both people and dogs. Cougars have learned, as the leopards of Africa and Asia have known for millennia, that dogs are tasty. Most historical accounts of cougars often talk about how “cowardly” they are, which is often mention in the context of how much they fear dogs. Wolves probably taught the cougars to fear dogs, but without learning this fear from either wolves or hunting dogs, the cats have started stalking pets. And it’s not a big leap from stalking dog to stalking people. (But cougar attacks on people are still quite rare.)
Of course, cougar hunting with hounds was banned in several states through animal rights activism.
And animal rights activists want to ban coursing.
Several years ago, California had a vote on whether to ban jackrabbit coursing. In case you didn’t know, jackrabbits are hares, so California was technically wanting to ban hare coursing, which has already happened in some European countries. The proposed legislation didn’t even make it out of committee.
It probably had no traction, because it’s hard to get someone worked up over a rangy old hare that eats crops.
However, coyotes are a different matter.
Not only can one try to make the case that coyote coursing is dog fighting, the coyote can be turned into a romantic wolf figure very easily. It’s very hard to argue against that wolf figure.
Please do not assume that I have an antipathy toward coyotes. I really don’t. I like having them around. I like listening to them at night, and whatever they are doing here, they aren’t harming the ecosystem. I appreciate their intelligence, their family units, and their close relationship to the domestic dog.
But I also respect the coyote coursers. They are breeding longdogs, staghounds, and greyhounds that are built for function. They are bred in a real open registry system (if registered at all.)
I think it’s a big, big stretch to call this dog fighting or even make such a comparison.
And the coyotes live natural lives up until the sight hounds catch them and dispatch them.
Fighting dogs really don’t have that luxury. Their lives are tied up in the fighting industy, which means they experience little more than a lifetime of suffering.
If you have to compare the pain and discomfort inflicted by dog fighting and the pain and discomfort inflicted by coyote coursing, coyote coursing comes up a far distant second to the real blood sport.
I hope these misconceptions won’t kill off coyote coursing, but I certainly hope dog fighting disappears entirely. My views are not inconsistent. I think you’d have to be willfully blind not to see it.
Using domestic animals/pets to kill other animals (either pets or wild) for our entertainment is a fascinating subject (it’s entertainment, because there are very few people in the USA who need to use hounds to catch rabbits for food, and of course coyotes are not considered food though they may be edible as dogs are).
Why is it ok to use our dogs to kill coyotes/rabbits/opossums and other animals … notably the animals we consider “vermin”? (For that matter, why is it ok to shoot at small mammals for “live target practice”?) “Fair chase” isn’t it, or we’d still be using deerhounds for their original purpose. Fighting dogs (at least in the traditional form) ALSO have an opportunity to escape, by “turning” or “curring out”, so that’s not it, either. The notion that the lives of fighting dogs are entirely miserable is something for which you have no basis to believe (unless of course you know dogfighters and how they keep their dogs). And unless you’re a coyote or a fighting dog, you have no way to compare the pain each suffers. I have read on a blog a defender of rabbit coursing assert that the rabbit feel no pain when the hound kills it.. do you believe that?
Personally, I see NO moral distinction between live coursing (or socalled terrier work) and dogfighting, but I know you and others will howl in protest. You want some animals … but not others… to be subject to harassment/torture/death by dog.
It’s a question of whose ox is being gored, so to speak. Some animals are more equal than others.
Of course any objection to coyote or rabbit coursing is an AR plot to prevent us from using our dogs for ANY purpose, and ultimately to prevent us from having dogs as pets at all.
BTW:
Why is a dog that kills a cat (or godforbid another dog) considered dangerous and subject to muzzling/death in many locations?
Your position IS inconsistent, because you have to tie yourself into knots to make it. It’s either ok to use dogs to kill other animals. Or it’s not. It would be more correct if you acknowledged the inconsistency. Lots of things we believe are inconsistent with other things we believe.
There is a difference between fair chase and fighting.
That’s not inconsistent.
There is also a big difference in how much pain and suffering is involved.
That’s not inconsistent.
I don’t think a dog that hunts cats is necessarily vicious, but people think cats have rights that other domestic animals do not.
If it is okay to kill animals for food, then it is okay to kill varmints to protect agricultural enterprises.
That’s a bit like saying, “either its OK to shoot animals with a gun, or its not.”
Circumstances (and often intent) matter, you can’t just make a blanket statement like that.
For example:
I will gladly shoot deer… as long as I have a license and tag, and am in a legal shooting area, and I have a clear shot and a well-maintained gun.
Yet it’s morally and legally wrong to poach a deer under similar circumstances… unless, of course, your family is starving and you need the meat… unless, of course, the deer you poached is an endangered species or something…
It’s wrong to shoot an animal to wound it to watch it suffer on purpose (that makes you a psychopath)… but not wrong to accidentally wound an animal while hunting as long as you do your best to track it and kill it cleanly.
It’s wrong to set up snare traps around your ranch to catch coyotes and let them die of stress and dehydration.
But I don’t think coyote coursing is inherently wrong.
If coyote coursing is wrong, then is all the hunting too.
If it was allowd here, I would course prey like hares and hogs with dogs. It is the most ecological hunting style – including that we’d eat the meat too – which of course we would.
Hunting-gun-industry is dirty and stupid. And all the metal, also lead that are left in the woods and waters. All the wounded prey that are never plocked. I hate that gang.
To compare.
BTW, use of lead bullets in hunting is banned in U.S, Canada, U.K, and also in your part of the world.
Hunting with lead ammunition is not banned in all states, sorry… The EPA actually refused legislation to ban it throughout the United States in Aug. 2010. Lead ammo bans are state mandated and variable by state.
The only federal law that exists was passed in Feb. 2011 and only for specific species of birds during depredation hunts ONLY.
“the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has banned the use of lead ammunition for control of blackbirds, magpies, grackles, crows and cowbirds.”
I’m not sure there’s an ecological argument against hunting with guns. In the 13 years I’ve been hunting, I’ve probably fired 20 bullets into the woods, max. That’s like, what, 10 ounces of metal spread over 100 square mile hunting range. Not seeing the huge impact, here.
A single tourist tosses more trash from their car as they zoom by my hunting area on their way to the beach.
Emily,
What leads you to believe a fighting dog can simply quit fighting and be done with the whole thing?
Often, the losers are left to be torn to bits by the other dog and die. Sometimes they make it and sit in a basement somewhere with no veterinary care. Or, sometimes, they will acquire their own supplies for stabilizing the animals and give IV fluids and antibiotics while they wait for the wounds to heal, hopefully… Oh, and usually, the dogs that lose become bait dogs because they are poor fighters. They teach other dogs to fight because they build confidence with a limited resistance to their assailant.
And I have seen fighting dogs, the conditions in which they are kept, and how they are treated. I’ve seen them in the homes, after Katrina, left to die in yards on 3 ft. chains when the water rose to 9 feet. I’ve seen them in the emergency vet clinic after raids where they had to have blood transfusions as they lie there semi-conscious while we worked feverishly to clamp a spurting jugular.
The difference between the two is quite clear actually… Humans created the dog, not the coyote, not the jackrabbit, with which to do our bidding. They deserve our protection. They are domesticated animals that would not exist without us.
It’s okay to use dogs to kill non-domesticated animals, there is no inconsistency in that. Domesticated animals are afforded our protection because we created them and are therefore responsible for their well-being.
Lastly, Californians are hilarious in that they believe in this fantasy world where all living things are happy and healthy (especially wild animals) and that the world would be a better place if we just didn’t bother the wild animals by hunting them. Coming from a state where common people are still knowledgeable about the natural world, I can tell you the alternative is deer hit by cars on the side of the road, rabbit populations getting out of control (cattle breaking their legs in these holes), and unhealthy, weak populations of animals that die from disease or starvation due to limited resources.
How would you rather go out? As a strapping buck just past his prime, chasing the scent of a familiar female through the fields and suddenly lights out so fast you never even heard the shot… or would you like to be harassed, tortured, killed as an elderly, infirm buck that can no longer withstand the threats of his younger adversaries. He wanders off into the woods, lies down, and waits for the infection from his wounds to kill him.
All you animal rights people have this glowing vision of the “wild” as some magical place for the aging wild. It’s not pretty, they die slowly and painfully naturally.
Domesticated animals are different from wild animals.
I know what you mean about coyotes being romantic figures. I love them, even though they probably ate one of my cats when I was a kid.
But nature’s bloody in tooth and claw. From my understanding of live coursing, it’s probably more humane than the Fish and Wildlife’s method of coyote control – trapping with body, head, or leg traps.
Interesting that some people would call it dog fighting. It’s apples and oranges. It’s the difference between fishing and shooting fish in a barrel.
The main difference between dogfighting and hunting with dogs is the purpose. In dog fighting the idea is to breed a dog that can endure prolonged injury without quitting. In other words the goal is to cause prolonged pain. In hunting the kills are quick. Hunts are not undertaken with the goal to cause prolonged injury or pain. When a dog, hawk, coyote or any predator kills another animal there is certainly some pain felt by the prey. I hunt with both hawks and sighthounds. I would not do either if I felt my actions were causing prolonged suffering on the part of the prey. That is the difference between dog fighting and hunting in my, and many other hunters, minds.
See Erich Fromm:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/text/sadism.txt
That is a good one. Say what you will about Michael Pollan, but his bit on hunting in The Omnivores Dilemma was also very well done.
Read the Prologue to this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FwihDB1qWSwC&lpg=PP1&ots=fnbCzJj5qR&dq=ted%20kerasote%20bloodties&pg=PR16#v=onepage&q&f=false
Taigan on a wolf (looks like a couple of Afghans there, too.) Not for the sensitive:
Why is it not okay for a dog to kill another dog or a cat? Two reasons: Dogs and cats are pets. Pets are associated and conflated with humans. Game animals are not. And people confuse prey drive with aggression towards people. A prime example of this is that during the anti-coursing bill in California, one of the anti arguments used was that killing a game animal would make a dog vicious and dangerous. This is at it’s base a stupid argument, because it opens up a reason for breed bans. If coursing dogs, including Greyhounds, have been BRED FOR A PURPOSE that makes them dangerous to people, why should people be allowed to keep them?
Calling coursing torture cheapens real torture. A hare being killed by a dog is in no way comparable to a dog being lit on fire, or doused caustic chemicals.
retrieverman said:
>> In the rural parts of the country, free roaming dogs are the rule, not the exception. <<
i do not know what part of the country U call home, but the only places that i know of that think *free roaming* is OK are ranch areas – with huge tracts of privately-owned land.
even there, if YOUR dog harasses stock, chases game, etc, the dog can be shot on sight, in most areas – by Game officers or by the average-citizen.
and in those same areas of RANGE rural-country, **even on private-land** there may be coyote-gitters – bait with an explosive strychnine device — which has killed many, many dom-dogs, foxes, badgers, skunks, and other NONtarget species.
so free-roaming dogs may not live long –
and free-roaming *off ones own property* can still lead to prosecution for trespass, harassing stock, violating game laws, etc.
cheers,
— terry
PS: the 1990 census declared only TWENTY-percent of USA lands were *rural* as defined by human-occupants per square-mile.
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
I live in rural West Virginia. Free roaming dogs are acceptable. Mine have all lived to their natural lifespans–13, 14, and one of my grandpa’s dogs made it 18, another to 20. We don’t have ranches in the East– a common suggestion I hear from Californians is that we do. Ranch is a Spanish word, and there were no Spanish here.
These dogs are far smarter than dogs that are shut up all day long. They get experience things. That makes the synaspes in their brains get denser.
There is a wonderful experiment on this with lab rats. Lab rats that were kept isolated in cages had much smaller brains and fewer synapses than rats that were played with lots of novel objects. Dogs that live on farms in rural areas get this. And we have no incidents of socially naive dogs getting into big fights or turning into biters.
If you lecture me about this again, you will be blocked.
I’m getting tired of it.
Free roaming dogs are fine in certain parts of the country. In fact, it is the ideal life for a dog.
Free roaming dogs (within reasonable limits) are also acceptable where I live, which is in town, even. (But in what you could call a semi-rural suburb).
There is a leash law within city limits, but it’s rarely enforced. As with most areas where the culture accepts free roaming animals, as long the individual is not causing trouble, there’s no problem.
I know a lot of ranchers and hobby farmers, too; they won’t shoot a dog just because it’s roaming. They’ll do that if the dog is actually, you know, harassing their animals.
Some of the best, calmest, least reactive dogs I’ve ever met have been these “neighborhood dogs”.
Many people who have read this blog know that I have a somewhat negative view of Dalmatians.
And I had a bad experience with one. He wasn’t aggressive. He was a damn fool.
And the more I have thought about it, the reason why he was a damn fool is that he lived in the suburbs for the early years of his life, never got to go off-leash, and was very neurotic as a result. He was ironically well socialized to other dogs, because the local band of suburban retrievers would visit him in their yard. (They had an invisible fence.)
I’m sure his brain never got to experience the things that my dogs get to experience as puppies. It’s why I will not keep a dog if I can’t have a good off-leash park nearby.
I am not saying just turn the dogs loose. It has to be within the limits of the law and the sensibilities of the neighbors. If the dog cannot harm itself and cannot annoy the neighbors, why not give it some freedom to make choices in its life?
We have no leash law. The county seat has a leash law, but it’s not enforced.
Dogs must have a license and a proof of rabies vaccine within the past two years (an archaic law– rabies vaccines last for three years).
However, these laws are only enforced if the dogs kill livestock or bite someone.
And livestock are very rarely killed. Even the coyotes aren’t that much of a problem towards the livestock.
I know a dog that knows how to cross a rural highway. He looks both ways and then does it. I don’t know how he learned this, but he’s entirely safe as a free roaming dog. He’s also a mastiff x and weighs 140 pounds.
Terry, is your pseudonym literal?
I was ‘raised’ by dogs like Lane below – 165# female St. Bernard and 190# male St. Bernard. I loved reading about Lane’s experience, as I have often thought that the dogs did a better job than my folks (only half-joking).
These were free roaming dogs, though they never went very far. The female lived to be 9 and the male we lost at 3 from cancer. Great dogs. That said, my mom’s once-in-a-lifetime dog, a 5 yr. Newf, was poisoned with antifreeze or so the story goes. BUT every dog she had after she continued to let roam. Nothing sketchy ever happened again.
For me, it’s a quality vs. quantity issue. You can lose a good dog too soon for any number of reasons, but you’ll know that if they had some freedom and interesting experiences it was a life well lived. Generalizations are tricky. Although, I do know dogs don’t exist to sit in our houses till we’re ready to do some activity with them strapped to us.
I am semi-rural but can’t let my current dogs roam. (I struggle with this conceptually regardless of how much time they get off leash.) We walk leash-less along some quiet roads (I’ve resigned to the fact that I may get a $151/dog ticket). I make this choice because they are smart and biddable dogs. They look both ways before crossing, never dilly dally in the road, and will come to be put on leash if need be. My lab x hears when cars are coming a full 3 or 4 seconds before I see/hear them. He’ll move from the edge of the road where it’s easiest to walk terrain-wise, off onto the grass until the car has passed. Their senses are amazing and I trust their judgment. I think the free roaming decision should be left to the individual: if one has trust in their dog, understands/accepts the consequences of accidents, mistakes, what have you, and is not a nuisance to others then what’s the problem?
Oh, free-roamness is the main dog-culture in the most parts of the world.
Even in Canada.
My friend just came back from a smaller town near Vancouver. He told dogs were walking loose everywhere, and they entered in shops and so.
In Berlin it used to be that way too. But since people started to keep more protector- and bt-breeds, accidents happened and now there are stricter dog-law. It’s a pity; tho’ all the “old berliners” still walk their dogs without leash.
I’m glad the Mastiff-cross knows how to cross the road safely–I’d sure as heck hate to hit that whopper! In regards to your Dalmation prejudice, I should be highly offended(but I’m not :)),since one of my parents was a Dalmation! I had three parents growing up–a mommy, a daddy, and a Dalmation! In fact I likely wouldn’t be here making a nuisance of myself on your blog(more reason for you to dislike them!) if it hadn’t been for that Spotted Dick(an actual old term for this breed!)–he rescued me from aggressive dogs, irate cattle, and neighborhood bullies regularly! He was insanely protective of me–someone did not DARE even raise their voice to me or he would instantly tear into them. Consequently, I went where I would, and challenged whomever I wished as long as that dog was nearby. I think I also imprinted on the spots as a toddler, and the dog was completely dominant over me in the family structure–it never even occurred to me to order him around–I did whatever HE did, and followed wherever HE led, which probably explains a lot about my unorthodox development..but what a splendid, faithful, and doting parent he was….but back to the subject at hand–how in the world people can compare any kind of real hunting(not talking canned hunts here, which ARE about as bad as dogfighting, in my opinion!) with dog fighting shows zero knowledge of the two. Dogfighting–dogs trained to be aggressive to their own kind(I guess human hunters are more likely to be serial killers of other humans by this comparison!) in a pit where they cannot escape, forced to fight. Hunting–(specifically coursing) dogs chasing prey animals that often as not get away, and if they catch them at all, they are killed quickly–in some cases the prey animal is utilized for food for the dogs and/or the people. This is animal humaniacs/vegetarian nonsense to compare the two as similar. Hey, I saw a great T-shirt awhile back that said “VEGETARIAN–ancient American Indian word for bad hunter”!!!:)
His name is Big Mike.
Well, you know how I feel about this. I love dogs. I love coyotes. I don’t like to see either hurt. Plus it’s risky business for both parties involved, more so than other normal canine activities. If I ever have to carry around goopy pen, I might rethink my dogs’ activities!
At risk (to what, I’m not sure), I’ll admit to testifying at the hearing in Solano County in which open field coursing was banned. I testified in support of a ban. The coursers were “hunting” hares adjacent to a park I liked to frequent with my dogs. The hares were left to rot (very few were scavenged). The dogs didn’t eat them. The humans didn’t, either. It was for pure fun – the field was owned by a developer who was (is) in the middle of several lawsuits. It was wasteful and sad and wrong. IMO! At the park, there is lure coursing. It is fun and no one gets killed. I like those kind of dog activities.
I was present at the state capital committee hearing. It was standing room only. True fact: Nothing fills committee hearing rooms like controversial animal bills. Nothing. The room was filled with a sea of orange and camo. People had to be escorted out. Words were exchanged. Not by me, of course. :) (Seriously, I didn’t engage).
Here are my views:
1. Coyotes didn’t evolve as top level predators. Their numbers were checked by wolves.
2. Wolves are gone. In some areas, cougars check their numbers.
3. Coyotes begin to produce beyond their carrying capacity.
4. Coyote die.
5. Without hunting, they die of mange and disease and starvation.
6. With hunting, they die of bullets or by the sight hounds
If I had a choice about how I were to die, I’d take number 6 over 5.
It’s just like abortion. We can outlaw abortion, but we won’t get rid of abortion. Abortion will happen anyway– which is the worst kind– Safe and legal or back alley?
Coyotes are going to die because of the way the ecosystem is. I’d rather it be swift. Sight hounds kill quickly. So do bullets.
If I were the creator and master of the universe, ecological systems wouldn’t require predation to maintain them.
But they do.
And without other predators, Homo sapiens must step in.
Plus, coursing coyotes with hounds doesn’t do much damage to coyote populations. In open country, it might be more efficient and more humane to enact this predation with sight hounds, rather than shooting them or trapping them.
I don’t agree with leaving any dead animal to rot. A coyote killed by coursing hounds should at least have its pelt removed. I don’t think anyone is going to eat it!
BTW, all hunting dogs get injured. The my grandparents had beagles that would make great big cuts in their ears when they chased their prey into a patch of multiflora rose. My grandpa had foxhounds that would wear the skin off their nose as they trailed foxes over many miles.
Dogs are predators, and I think we are, too. I’m deeply concerned with animal pain and suffering, but the world cannot exist without at least some of it.
Just keep in mind, I think animal rights people are very much correct on many issues, but so are hunters. I’m weird this way. I am like split in two.
You know who taught me that animals feel pain?
My grandfather.
Do you know what he’s doing this week?
Hunting turkeys.
And because of this, I don’t believe hunters are sadists. They are not the same as dog fighters.
1) Holy crap, please be careful with the abortion analogies. I’ve never seen those take an conversation anywhere good.
2) I quibble with your wording, “without other predators, Homo sapiens must step in.”
It’s not like humans are just standing back, godlike, magnanimously observing the pristine wilderness and waiting to lend a hand if it falls out of balance. We made it this way, we’re in the middle of it, interfering in a million subtle and not-so-subtle ways, still a a part of nature, but often unwilling to accept it, surrounded by our own mess. It’s wrong to come into an ecosystem, throw it so out of whack that it can barely function, and then step back and say, oh no, it’s better to let nature take its course NOW. It’s wrong to NOT to try to balance things when we can.
What I’m saying is that we have a “predation” responsibility. These mid-level predators will produce surplus offspring who are likely to get diseases or get in trouble (cat-eating, etc).
If we still had wolves in most of coyote range, things might be different.
Yes, humans made it this way.
But we still have to play the roll of predator in the ecosystem. If for no other reason than there is no one else.
Hunting animals with guns puts a different selective pressure on prey species than hunting them with fast dogs. Hunting them with fast dogs, while not the same as wolf predation, is going to replicate the pressures that wolves once gave to coyote far better than squealing them in.
I agree with you. It was a small quibble. ;)
I think that’s actually what coyote hunters do. The rancher in this article may not understand it, but I’ve read a book on coyote hunting at a local bookstore by a biologist who used to work for our state DNR. Essentially, he contends that coyote hunting is good for coyotes, not because it reduces their numbers significantly but because it takes out the surplus young who will die anyway. It also teaches coyotes to avoid people and dogs. And it creates a certain amount of value for the coyote in the eyes of the hunting public (kind of a reverse of what they all say they believe). I am sure the rancher in the NY Times Article would hate it if coyotes became extinct.
I also believe that our role in the ecosystem is as a predator, but because we have large brains, we can use our predation to make some amends for the things we’ve totally effed up.
However, I’m not about to defend the policy of shooting wolves from planes and helicopters in Alaska– that’s kind of bizarro biology.
BTW, I have always used that abortion analogy for animal issues. It’s not perfect, but you can turn it back on someone who doesn’t believe abortion should be safe and legal. It’s a bit harder to do the reverse.
R-man said
>> I’ve read a book on coyote hunting at a local bookstore by a biologist who used to work for our state DNR. …he contends that coyote hunting is good for coyotes, not because it reduces their numbers significantly but because it takes out the surplus young who will die anyway. <<
how do they predict *how many* are surplus?
as many of the areas east of the Mississippi are newly colonized by coyotes (not new as in last-week, NEW as in historically, coyotes did not live east of the Miss-R), there must have been a considerable gap in the predator ranks…
after all, puma above Georgia have been wiped-out, wolves east of the Miss-R are gone, bobcats are greatly reduced, foxes are not exactly mushrooming… LYNX were always a high-northern predator, limited in range to the snowshoe-hares range.
fishers are a northern-species, as are wolverine.
black-bears are primarily veg-eaters, YES they eat meat, but no, they are not primarily carnivores; over 70% of their diet is veg.
i don;t think coyote are over-populating their environs; i think they are filling a big hole in the food-web of the Eastern USA.
making-up for the loss of multiple species means that there will be more coyote than there were, say, puma – cuz puma are bigger, take larger territories, eat bigger game most of the time.
in 1997 in Penna at the Mosquito Creek hunting club, multiple members claimed that coyote had been *imported + released* by either the state Fish + Game, or the Feds;
3 or 4 ppl specifically claimed that they knew someone, who knew someone, who had (gasp! :—O … ) SHOT a coyote with a radio-collar on their neck!
but nobody had a collar to show me…
;–) nor could they supply phone-numbers or names for any person who had supposedly shot a radio-telemetry coyote.
then i found a paperback copy of the FUR BEARING SPECIES report for 1977…
and Every State that bordered Penna had recorded coyote taken by leg-traps, or shot by predator-hunters.
if coyote could *not* walk + breed their way from lower New-York state south thru a sparsely-populated region of northern-Pa + into central-PA in 20-years, i would think that very odd…
that they obviously had, and did, struck me as perfectly normal.
no need for the claims of SEMIs hauling trailers loaded with coyotes, being dropped-off a few at a time by those evil $%#@! Game-Wardens or Fed-Wildlife weirdos, LOL.
i think they just walked there, breeding along the way – all on their own.
JMO, yer mileage may vary –
— terry
Hunting and fishing are not merely recreational activities. They are essential to wildlife management.
And I know that you, as a biologist, agree with that.
I honour your vegetarianism.
There are entire cultures of your type, for ex. hindus.
Some of them are old enough to show no meat or abuse of animal is necessary to create a rich culture.
Must contribute tho’ that in the Ice Age or in the North (before The Super-Market Age) it would have been difficult to be a vege and survive.
coyotes don;t grow to outnumber their prey species –
the longest-studied group of wolves are the Isle Royale wolves who have swung from a high of 31 to a low of 23, i think (off the top of my head).
in the same time frame, the moose they preyed on plummeted and soared enormously, thru boom and bust cycles. the wolves helped to stabilize the moose popn, as *before* the wolves made it from mainland to island, the booms + busts were even more wildly erratic.
wolves don;t kill coyotes because the coyotes are too many; they kill them because they compete with them. wolves will kill foxes, too.
FOXES do not become so numerous that we *have to* kill them to control their numbers – nor do bobcats, or lynx.
i think coyote are more popular for the varmint image – and therefore get the *benefit* of being touted as a threat to local wildlife.
feral domestic-cats have now hit between 80 and 100 million – if American hunters want a predator to kill, shoot feral-cats.
(yup – i know its not popular,
Yup, i know its not the cats fault; but we cannot spay the humans who dumped the cats, sadly. it happened too long-ago, they have grandchildren by now… too late!)
feral-cats are a non-native, highly-destructive predator who breed rapidly; they are long-day breeders, and females can have 7 litters a year, averaging 7 kits each; thats 49 kittens per female cat.
even if only 2 of those kittens live for 12-mos, and one is F and the other M, thats another 24-kittens from that daughter –
U can easily see how fast cats can explode.
cheers,
— terry
OOPS – error!
i meant to say Spay / Neuter, not only *spay* the humans…
the ones who dumped the cats originally, that is. :D
please read it as * desex * meaning Either Sex, thanks!
— terry
Yeah, Retrieverman, I’m right on the fence between hunting/non-hunting, too. I regularly anger hunters AND humaniacs! Its just that there is good and BAD on both sides, and the all-or-nothing attitude just gets me to haranguing whichever is being unrealistic or just plain ignorant….Rinalia, that scenario sounds like a ban WAS necessary–hunters that don’t respect their prey any more than just to kill it for fun and let it rot deserve to have the privilege taken away, and there are, alas, lots of “slob” hunters out there. I certainly don’t defend poor hunting etiquette. Some of the poor hunting practices you see now are from people who had no training or examples in respect to Nature and its laws, because they did not grow up with such a tradition. but comparing them to responsible hunters who respect and utilize the animals they hunt is llike saying factory farms are the same as organic farming–they are worlds apart! I personally never kill animals for “fun”–if I ever do, it is to eat, or because some animal is persistently being a threat to me or my own animals–even then I’ll try numerous other solutions(which usually work) before I’ll kill something. But I won’t tell someone else they are wrong for hunting, if they do it respectfully and humanely as possible. One reason is because I know of course, that those same animals, in areas where they have few or no natural predators, will still die anyway, by disease, starvation, and other more horrible deaths. In many developed areas, autos take a huge toll on wildlife, but I don’t see the humaniacs banning them in protest! The lack of intention doesn’t count much to the dead critter–in fact, if given a voice, I think the critter’s spirit would understand better and respect a hunter killing it and eating it(a quite natural, predatory act, which I think humans have as much right to do as a wolf or a cougar) over someone who hit it by accident and just drove on and left it’s carcass to rot by the road. Things like dogs being euthanized for killing a neighborhood cat(as if it were somehow comparable to human murder!) just show how out of touch with Nature modern, westernized society is getting, and remind me of the old Medieval trials that were held(with court appointed lawyers and everything! Yes, humans have been stupidly unrealistic about animals for centuries!) whenever a cow or a horse or a pig caused a human death–going so far as to hang them or burn them as in a human criminal execution. Only people raised in urban environments devoid of contact with real Nature have such unrealistic notions. Eliminating hunting entirely, some peoples’ only contact with Nature, will only drive the wedge of ignorance deeper…..
I have a similar philosophy, and I try to bring it to all the life around me, not just the large, pretty mammals.
I actively avoid stepping on bugs, I rescue worms from puddles, I rarely pick wild flowers, I’ve never used an insecticide.
I hate needless killing. But I’m all for needful killing. Kill the termites destroying your house, or spray herbicide in your pasture so your horses don’t die from eating larkspur, or shoot a deer for food, or cull an excess population of coyotes, or euthanize a suffering pet. I don’t even see a problem, per se, with leaving the dead animal to rot. Bugs need to eat too, it’s not necessarily a waste.
Sickening. And cruel. Very one-sided “facts” that are not backed by any true or cited research.
You act as if it is natural to send domesticated animals on wild ones (and not for physical gain) and say that wolves do the same thing. Wolves do it to survive as coyotes take from their kills, and dogs do not “hate” coyotes. As you stated, they are very genetically close. The reason dogs are hostile (which is a much better term) towards coyotes is because they communicate using the same scents, and yes, they share a lot of body language. So dogs see coyotes as other dogs imposing on their territory, resources, and owners. And the fact that some dogs are non-aggressive towards other dogs and aggressive towards coyotes says nothing. I am sure you will find that there are dogs that are hostile towards other dogs that are less hostile towards coyotes.
You act as if these animals demons, are lower than life. You act like an arrogant child, and your argument is built upon not scientific facts, but an emotional need to see these animals are tortured, that you claim helps everyone involved. What happens when money gets thrown in? What happens when a dog is injured? Or killed? The coyote is often killed beyond any use, meaning it died with no purpose in death. That is the difference between the humane means of dispachment known as hunting, and the slightly less humane means known as trapping. Still, both of these not only dispach of coyotes, but also provide products to the growing business of the fur trade. What you do is a dangerous waste of life, taking advantage of two species for the entertainment of another. I have no problem with the killing of any animal. But I DO have a problem with the wasting of innocent lives for sport, which is exactly what this is. There are clearly better alternatives. Tell me, how would you feel to have a pack of coyotes descend on one of your dogs, and you watch it tear said dog apart while ALIVE. Who wins that fight? No, this might not be a dog fight, but it is a disgusting practice that can only hide behind the fact that it is not defined as dog fighting.
No offense, but coyote-coursing with dogs is an old sport. I come from a province with a long history of coyote-hunting.
For a long time coursing coyotes with greyhounds and staghounds were the only way to hunt them because not a lot of people can imitate a cry of a dying rabbit; even then, coyotes are too wry to go near people.
It wasn’t until snowmobiles were invented and were used heavily in the 1970s, people began to question the ethics of coursing animals as dogs tire out; machines don’t. Once snowmobiles were banned in the late ’70s for the purpose of pursuing game, this led the door cracked open about ethic over whether or not using dogs is a blood sport.
I can tell you, shooting a ‘yote is really difficult unless one is a sharp-shooter and has some powerful modern optic. They are just too clever, and most people who take potshot at a coyote end up maiming them; then they die a horrible slow death after being shot in the guts.
Believe me, I’ve seen coyote-coursing a few times a year before it was banned in Alberta; and it is far more swift and humane than shooting one at 300-800 yards with a small calibre rifle. Witnessing a gut-shot wild canine is not a pretty sight. However such “inhumanity” of shooting a coyote has to be done because a lot of time, they will prey on birthing calves, and they are known to into town centres during times of severe-overpopulation; and lack of wolves inhabiting major urban centres. So, culls must be performed. I wish they bring back coursing wild canids with sighthounds.
http://desertwindhounds.blogspot.com/2011/02/yes-im-in-bad-mood-today-language.html