Coyote Attack in Laguna Woods: City Council Votes to Shoot Coyotes

[zomgwtf]

There are many people who do not understand hunting. Often they describe it as people taking pleasure in killing. I have Native American blood on both sides of my extended family, and I grew up hunting deer. We did not kill deer indiscriminately - only for the venison, and my father and uncles trained me to only take a "kill" shot and respect the deer. I still hunt almost 50 years later, and I hunt with a single-shot rifle (.45-70 Ruger Model 1) and haven't needed a second shot for decades. There is nothing like venison steak, heart, liver, etc. It's what I grew up eating.

There are some out-of-state nuts that come to Maine loaded with semi-automatic rifles, wearing huge knives, etc, and they spend much of their time partying in the local bars. Anti-hunters might find some quarrel with such city-dwellers, but so do the natives in Maine that adhere to more traditional standards for hunting etiquette. That means concern and respect for the game and the other hunters in the woods.

There is no pleasure in killing an animal for meat. Slaughter-house-workers and butchers can tell you this. They are the "sin-eaters" for all the "innocents" that want to pick up packages of hamburg, steak, chicken, etc, neatly wrapped in plastic-covered foam trays and never take responsibility for the lives of the animals that they eat. At least a cleanly-killed deer has had the advantage of living all of its life in the wild, instead of in a feed-lot.

Turbo I think you know that I am Metis... fully. Non-status of course because due to a burnt down church and lost birth records but none the less many people in my family hunt for food as well. They come from New Brunswick (Grand Falls) which is really a light jog and a little jump away from Maine (where you are correct?) So the cultures aren't that different really. So I understand what you're saying... but...

Just because there's a greater purpose to the killed animal doesn't take away from the pleasure that's gained from hunting. That's why people do it. First you're alone in the woods (well sometimes alone sometimes not but it's quiet always so basically you're alone) which to most hunters is really pleasurable. Even if they don't get a kill it's a good day out. Second the anticipation of animal making sure you're doing everything properly, quite thrilling. Third, SEEING the animal and deciding it's good to shoot. Fourth, taking the shot... and this is probably the most pleasurable thing of all. It's not 'sadistic' it's just exhilarating, shooting a rifle within very small error margins to kill a sometimes HUGE animal. Fifth, some people actually like chopping up the animal it's not a weird sort of 'nasty' ew they like killing and dismembering bodies it's just interesting and some people enjoy it. Fifth EATING the meat. This is easily the most enjoyed by all parties, even those that don't hunt... Some people get pleasure just out of the gamey taste of meat, some people like non-gamey wild meat... makes no difference the pleasure factor is still there.

Now it used to be vital to do this to survive so while going on the hunt it would be counter balanced by the knowledge that if you screw up you're tribe/family won't eat. Now days though it's different, if you want any kind of meat you can go to the store and get already killed and butchered animals. Now why kill ANOTHER animal if you're so worried about them? The only reason is to get pleasure nothing else. It is not required to survive.

Also I do not know of these people personally that you speak of with automatic rifles etc. etc.. Our laws are different up here but I wouldn't consider those people hunters. Those type of hillbillies that just use dynamite to fish cause they think it's funny.

 

[turbo]

A semi-automatic rifle or pistol is not "automatic". It simply loads another round after each round is fired. That's all. There is no machine-gun rapid-fire going on, though anti-gun-nuts want to give the impression that that's that case, calling SKS rifles as AK-47s. and other crap. I have a couple of auto-loading pistols, though they are very antiquated. I have another that that is a bit more up-to-date, but still, it's not like the extreme fire-power that you see in movies and popular media is real. One trigger-pull is reguired for each shot.

 

[turbo]

Now it used to be vital to do this to survive so while going on the hunt it would be counter balanced by the knowledge that if you screw up you're tribe/family won't eat. Now days though it's different, if you want any kind of meat you can go to the store and get already killed and butchered animals. Now why kill ANOTHER animal if you're so worried about them? The only reason is to get pleasure nothing else. It is not required to survive.

When I was a kid, failure to get enough game was enough to guarantee that although your family wouldn't eat, it was enough to ensure that your family wouldn't eat well.

Would you want to feed your children meat from dead/dying dairy cows instead or healthy fresh-killed game? Nope. That's the way I was brought up.

 

[zomgwtf]

A semi-automatic rifle or pistol is not "automatic". It simply loads another round after each round is fired. That's all. There is no machine-gun rapid-fire going on, though anti-gun-nuts want to give the impression that that's that case, calling SKS rifles as AK-47s. and other crap. I have a couple of auto-loading pistols, though they are very antiquated. I have another that that is a bit more up-to-date, but still, it's not like the extreme fire-power that you see in movies and popular media is real. One trigger-pull is reguired for each shot.

Sorry, when I read semi-automatic I read automatic. Regardless the type of people you're explaining I think still fit the bill I said.

 

[dlgoff]

When I was a kid, failure to get enough game was enough to guarantee that although your family wouldn't eat, it was enough to ensure that your family wouldn't eat well.

Would you want to feed your children meat from dead/dying dairy cows instead or healthy fresh-killed game? Nope. That's the way I was brought up.

Right on turbo. My parents lived through the depression days in Arkansas and hunting was the only way to survive. And with the prices of food today, I'm seriously going to consider more hunting.

 

[Proton Soup]

Sorry, when I read semi-automatic I read automatic. Regardless the type of people you're explaining I think still fit the bill I said.

i think it's extremely bigoted and way off the mark. hunting out of state is expensive, for starters. a lot of the goons you are talking about are doctor and lawyer types, not hillbillies thank you very much. they pay stupid amounts of money for silly stuff like $300 hunting shirts, and then go to a deer ranch where they corral the animals up tight so you can bag your game.

 

[Evo]

i think it's extremely bigoted and way off the mark. hunting out of state is expensive, for starters. a lot of the goons you are talking about are doctor and lawyer types, not hillbillies thank you very much. they pay stupid amounts of money for silly stuff like $300 hunting shirts, and then go to a deer ranch where they corral the animals up tight so you can bag your game.

It was turbo that was speaking of out of state goon hunters, not zom.

 

[DaveC426913]

Those sorts of people are going to do that sort of thing no matter what.

It's not about "those sorts of people"; it's about humans have property rights and coyotes do not. Once humans claim the territory as their own (by deciding to live on it), they are within their rights to purge the area of any threat to them.

Now, that is not to say an area could not be set aside as a preserve, so that the coyotes are protected, but that is another kettle of fish.

 

[Evo]

It's not about "those sorts of people"; it's about humans have property rights and coyotes do not. Once humans claim the territory as their own (by deciding to live on it), they are within their rights to purge the area of any threat to them.

Now, that is not to say an area could not be set aside as a preserve, so that the coyotes are protected, but that is another kettle of fish.

I don't think humans have the right to claim any land they want and kill what ever lives on it. Just because it's done doesn't make it right.

 

[Proton Soup]

It was turbo that was speaking of out of state goon hunters, not zom.

i believe turbo mentioned city-dwellers and zomgwtf brought up hillbillies.

 

[zomgwtf]

i believe turbo mentioned city-dwellers and zomgwtf brought up hillbillies.

I can honestly say now that I have no idea of what turbo was talking about. The picture he painted in my head made me think of a "Larry the Cable Guy" type of person just coming from a city. If using the term hillybilly is offensive than sorry? I guess I should have said 'hick' or something along those lines. Those type of white people that go crazy for owning guns and pick up trucks and drinking heavy etc. etc.. That's what he got me thinking about anyways. Not that it's derogatory but for the most part I wouldn't consider them hunters. Just 'hick' is fine.

 

[turbo]

Zom, a lot of the out-of-state "hunters" that we get here are not "hunters" in any real sense. If you let them out in the woods without supervision (even with their expensive accouterments), you'd better hope that they don't stray too far from the road, because we'll have to pay wardens, etc, to find them and bring them back to safety. It's pretty sad.

Maine's terrain is not all that inhospitable, but when you have some clueless people let loose in many thousands of square miles of forest with no orientation skills, you've got to expect that we'll have to save quite a few of them from themselves every year.

 

[I_am_learning]

Should I kill this mosquito sitting on my cheek right now, Or should I phone the animal consevation bla bla officiers?
Why is our sentiment different for large and small animals?

If the beast gives you trouble, kill it.
If the beast don't have any love and moral sense, Is it the duty of humans alone to care for everybody?
Hello Every Species, just care for yourself. Thats what nature expects you to do.

 

[zomgwtf]

Should I kill this mosquito sitting on my cheek right now, Or should I phone the animal consevation bla bla officiers?
Why is our sentiment different for large and small animals?

If the beast gives you trouble, kill it.
If the beast don't have any love and moral sense, Is it the duty of humans alone to care for everybody?
Hello Every Species, just care for yourself. Thats what nature expects you to do.

I'm sure 'nature' in all parts of the world anticipated the human species. If this was about "naturally" defending yourself humans would be... ... ... well not so off let's just say that. Good luck fighting off two coyotes without a weapon, bud.

I assume you've never heard of the term noblesse oblige? Well, if humans want to be the rulers of the world and the dominant species then yes... we really do have a duty IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Should I kill this mosquito sitting on my cheek right now, Or should I phone the animal consevation bla bla officiers?
Why is our sentiment different for large and small animals?

If the beast gives you trouble, kill it.
If the beast don't have any love and moral sense, Is it the duty of humans alone to care for everybody?
Hello Every Species, just care for yourself. Thats what nature expects you to do.

There's a big difference depending on the animal and what it's doing :uhh:

Killing insects does not really open up an avenue to animal cruelty, hunting for hunting sake does.

 

[I_am_learning]

There's a big difference depending on the animal and what it's doing :uhh:

Killing insects does not really open up an avenue to animal cruelty, hunting for hunting sake does.

Who is talking about hunting for hunting sake? I am talking about killing coyotes when they are trying to attack you or your puppy.

BTW, don't you all think its odd that nobody speaks a word about animal cruelty when we use pesticides to mass murder thousands of insects on our crops, (and in the process end up killing another thousands of microbes or other insects that may not be harming our crops), but People talk about how cruel it is that the Municipality mercilessly Killing Street Dogs to control rabies.

I see high biasdness regarding animal affection and cruelity depending upon the size of the animal.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Who is talking about hunting for hunting sake? I am talking about killing coyotes when they are trying to attack you or your puppy.

BTW, don't you all think its odd that nobody speaks a word about animal cruelty when we use pesticides to mass murder thousands of insects on our crops, (and in the process end up killing another thousands of microbes or other insects that may not be harming our crops), but People talk about how cruel it is that the Municipality mercilessly Killing Street Dogs to control rabies.

I see high biasdness regarding animal affection and cruelity depending upon the size of the animal.

If there is a bias it's a legitimate bias. Firstly: Pesticides that wipe out other animals is unfortunate and should be worked against (e.g. DDT). Secondly: Insects are different not just because of their size but because of the indication that they may not feel pain and the level of consciousness we are willing to give them.

I base my ethics in a utilitarian manner, rating pleasure vs suffering. The suffering of insects rarely matches up, though I do avoid killing them unnecessarily.

 

[I_am_learning]

If there is a bias it's a legitimate bias. Firstly: Pesticides that wipe out other animals is unfortunate and should be worked against (e.g. DDT). Secondly: Insects are different not just because of their size but because of the indication that they may not feel pain and the level of consciousness we are willing to give them.

I base my ethics in a utilitarian manner, rating pleasure vs suffering. The suffering of insects rarely matches up, though I do avoid killing them unnecessarily.

For Bold: How do you know?
For Underline: How are we authorized to decide for them?

Furthermore, I think the mice that attacks our food are more innocent than the coyotes being discussed. Yet nobody feels bad about killing hundreds of mice.
In my opinion, we need to first care for ourselves, then only care animals.

 

[DaveC426913]

BTW, don't you all think its odd that nobody speaks a word about animal cruelty when we use pesticides to mass murder thousands of insects on our crops, (and in the process end up killing another thousands of microbes or other insects that may not be harming our crops), but

There is a natural difference between the two survival strategies of many-but-simple and few-but-complex.

The many-but-simple strategy has evolved to be prey, to be wiped out by the thousands. If they were not, the world would quickly be overrun with them. The few-but-complex strategy is evolved to invest lots of budget into few creatures. Wiping out just a few of them can upset whole ecologies.

Which is why, yes, the life of a mosquito really is cheap - by nature's standards, not just our own.

And that's where we get into an issue of culling coyotes. When the few-but-complex predators start to overrun their domain, that can cause the balance to go haywire.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think humans have the right to claim any land they want and kill what ever lives on it. Just because it's done doesn't make it right.

True, though what are the alternatives? Human populations expand unchecked. We do not place restrictions on them (such as you have no land therefore you you cannot breed), so the needs of the animals fall second to the needs of the humans. Short of strict human population control (never going to happen) animals are fighting a losing war with human expansion. Not much that can be done about that at this level.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

For Bold: How do you know?
For Underline: How are we authorized to decide for them?

Furthermore, I think the mice that attacks our food are more innocent than the coyotes being discussed. Yet nobody feels bad about killing hundreds of mice.
In my opinion, we need to first care for ourselves, then only care animals.

I agree with the last statement but I do disapprove of mouse traps that kill over ones that don't unless it is unavoidable or necessary to cull the local mouse population.

Whether or not insects feel pain is still a debated topic in the field as they do not possesses anything approaching mammalian pain receptors, there is possible indications that their responses to stimulus are much more reflex based as opposed to conscious but it is disputed. It's been a long time (undergrad) since I worked in an insect lab but there was a lot of discussion on the topic then. As for "how can I judge" the same way I judge any ethical situation, by utilising what I know to come to the best possible solution at the time.

 

[I_am_learning]

I am thinking about it again and I realize this.
If there is a mosquito spinning around you, you kill it. Even if you aren't sure whether it was going to bite you or not. Nobody feels much bad about it, because, you don't see it in agony.

When bigger animals are killed, we see them in agony, and we feel bad, realating that agony to how we ourselves would feel. So, in the end its all about how we feel. Its nothing about, we really care for animals.
So,if someone don't feel that bad killing coyotes, (the feelings depends person-wise), you shouldn't stop him from protecting himself and his puppy, you better turn your head away.
Yeah, hunting for hunting sake is little cruel though.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I am thinking about it again and I realize this.
If there is a mosquito spinning around you, you kill it. Even if you aren't sure whether it was going to bite you or not. Nobody feels much bad about it, because, you don't see it in agony.

When bigger animals are killed, we see them in agony, and we feel bad, realating that agony to how we ourselves would feel. So, in the end its all about how we feel. Its nothing about, we really care for animals.
So,if someone don't feel that bad killing coyotes, (the feelings depends person-wise), you shouldn't stop him from protecting himself and his puppy, you better turn your head away.
Yeah, hunting for hunting sake is little cruel though.

I would qualify "nobody", clearly you've never met a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism" . In reality all of our ethics descends from how we feel, and "caring for animals" doesn't necessarily imply an absolute empathy with all animals under all situations. But this does cross over onto the bothersome problem that organisations such as the WWF that focus on cute and cuddly animals over the ugly yet critical ones.

Glad we agree on the hunting issue, that's how my criticism of shooting coyotes started. Not because I thought there weren't situations where it justified but because I'm sceptical of policies that allow people to legitimately walk around shooting animals.

 

[I_am_learning]

There is a natural difference between the two survival strategies of many-but-simple and few-but-complex.

The many-but-simple strategy has evolved to be prey, to be wiped out by the thousands. If they were not, the world would quickly be overrun with them. The few-but-complex strategy is evolved to invest lots of budget into few creatures. Wiping out just a few of them can upset whole ecologies.

Which is why, yes, the life of a mosquito really is cheap - by nature's standards, not just our own.

And that's where we get into an issue of culling coyotes. When the few-but-complex predators start to overrun their domain, that can cause the balance to go haywire.

So, you are on the opinion that --> We don't really care for animals. We don't love them (except for your beloved pets!). What we do is make laws for what animals you can kill and what animals you can't depending upon what impact it will make on the ecosystem, which in turn is caring for ourselves.
In fact that is what going on.

 

[DaveC426913]

But this does cross over onto the bothersome problem that organisations such as the WWF that focus on cute and cuddly animals over the ugly yet critical ones.

My sister the biologist used to feel the same way. She eventually came around to the philosophy of 'So what? Let em flog cute 'n cuddly! If it gets people (and kids) to donate, and to gets them seeing it as a cause - then that's way better than ignorance and apathy! Means justifies the end.'

 

[DaveC426913]

So, you are on the opinion that -->

Not really sure I said any of that but...

We don't really care for animals. We don't love them (except for your beloved pets!).

What we do is make laws for what animals you can kill and what animals you can't depending upon what impact it will make on the ecosystem, which in turn is caring for ourselves.
In fact that is what going on.

It seems kind of silly to say we don't really care about them, we just ... well ... care about them because we want nature to continue.

(Don't know what love has to do with anything. Seems like an attempt to drag this discussion to an emotional forum.)

Animals are the ecosystem. To care about the impact on the ecosystem is to care about them.

The philosophy is that of conscientious stewardship of our planet. We finally realize we cannot preserve nature, but we can conserve nature. So we choose to do that, because we can.

 

[I_am_learning]

Not really sure I said any of that but...



It seems kind of silly to say we don't really care about them, we just ... well ... care about them because we want nature to continue.

(Don't know what love has to do with anything. Seems like an attempt to drag this discussion to an emotional forum.)

Animals are the ecosystem. To care about the impact on the ecosystem is to care about them.

The philosophy is that of conscientious stewardship of our planet. We finally realize we cannot preserve nature, but we can conserve nature. So we choose to do that, because we can.

That was a difficult word. After googling the terms separately, I still don't understand what that means. Is that a tactics to win over this discussion by introducing difficult words? :P

O.K. I agree. We care nature and we care ecosystem (which is comprised of animals). And your point was that, But we don't care for each single animal.
Do you care, If I hunt a deer? (assuming it won't disturb ecosystem)
Oh! wait let's leave this discussion. I think Its going towards vegetarian/non-vegeterian discussion. The discussion is boiling down to is it o.k. to use (Kill) animals solely for your benefit?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That was a difficult word. After googling the terms separately, I still don't understand what that means. Is that a tactics to win over this discussion by introducing difficult words? :P

O.K. I agree. We care nature and we care ecosystem (which is comprised of animals). And your point was that, But we don't care for each single animal.
Do you care, If I hunt a deer? (assuming it won't disturb ecosystem)
Oh! wait let's leave this discussion. I think Its going towards vegetarian/non-vegeterian discussion. The discussion is boiling down to is it o.k. to use (Kill) animals solely for your benefit?

I would argue it is not OK for you to go out and kill a deer for fun. Another way to look at how much we care about animals is just to think how we care about humans, I care about all humans in a general kind of way, I don't care for all of them individually, however I do care strongly about the ones I know.

 

[DaveC426913]

That was a difficult word. After googling the terms separately, I still don't understand what that means. Is that a tactics to win over this discussion by introducing difficult words? :P

It means we make a decision to look after our planet. There was once a time that many we thought we could "preserve" nature, if only by leaving enough of it alone. We made huge nature preserves, and figured we could let nature run its course on them, and everything would stay "in balance". That was naive. If we want nature to continue, we will have to play an active part.

In a tiny scale the same thing happens with my fish tank. It is not simply a fish preserve, where I let things run their course; I must tend to it; I am its steward. I meddle with it constantly. I must meddle with it. I must change its water (since it is too small to be stable), I must check the temp, I must fee them and medicate them, etc.

Stewardship of the Earth is the same thing, writ large.

O.K. I agree. We care nature and we care ecosystem (which is comprised of animals). And your point was that, But we don't care for each single animal.
Do you care, If I hunt a deer? (assuming it won't disturb ecosystem)

If you hunt a deer? Or if the other 400,000 people who like hunting hunt a deer? See the problem?

 

[I_am_learning]

It means we make a decision to look after our planet. There was once a time that many we thought we could "preserve" nature, if only by leaving enough of it alone. We made huge nature preserves, and figured we could let nature run its course on them, and everything would stay "in balance". That was naive. If we want nature to continue, we will have to play an active part.

In a tiny scale the same thing happens with my fish tank. It is not simply a fish preserve, where I let things run their course; I must tend to it; I am its steward. I meddle with it constantly. I must meddle with it. I must change its water (since it is too small to be stable), I must check the temp, I must fee them and medicate them, etc.

Stewardship of the Earth is the same thing, writ large.



If you hunt a deer? Or if the other 400,000 people who like hunting hunt a deer? See the problem?

Got it. Thanks. :)

 

[DaveC426913]

P.S. I do not actually fee my fish. I am control freak, true, but taxing them is a bit excessive, even for me.