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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Is Hard
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Laguna Woods City Council has approved a measure allowing licensed professionals to shoot coyotes following a recent attack that resulted in a dog fatality and injuries to its owner. This decision marks a significant shift in local wildlife management, as previously only police officers could discharge firearms in the city. The new policy permits the city manager and police chief to issue permits to qualified exterminators and veterinarians for culling coyotes that pose a threat to pets and residents. Discussions among community members reveal a divide on the ethics of shooting wildlife versus employing preventive measures to protect pets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of local wildlife management policies
  • Knowledge of coyote behavior and ecology
  • Familiarity with firearm regulations in urban settings
  • Awareness of animal control practices and humane treatment of wildlife
NEXT STEPS
  • Research local wildlife management strategies and their effectiveness
  • Learn about humane culling methods and their ethical implications
  • Explore coyote deterrent techniques for pet owners
  • Investigate the impact of urban development on wildlife behavior
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for urban planners, wildlife conservationists, pet owners in coyote-prone areas, and local government officials involved in wildlife management and public safety.

  • #61
I_am_learning said:
So, you are on the opinion that -->
Not really sure I said any of that but...

I_am_learning said:
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
DaveC426913 said:
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?
 
  • #63
I_am_learning said:
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.
 
  • #64
I_am_learning said:
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.

I_am_learning said:
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?
 
  • #65
DaveC426913 said:
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. :)
 
  • #66
P.S. I do not actually fee my fish. I am control freak, true, but taxing them is a bit excessive, even for me. :biggrin: