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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Laguna Woods City Council's decision to allow the shooting of coyotes following attacks on small pets. Participants express a range of feelings about the ethics and practicality of this decision, considering the implications for both wildlife and pet safety.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express mixed feelings about the coyote attacks, emphasizing the need for pet owners to consider their living environment in relation to wildlife.
  • One participant shares personal experiences with coyotes, suggesting that their presence is linked to human food sources and that they are not in danger of extinction.
  • Another participant supports the idea of shooting coyotes that pose a threat to pets but also suggests alternative deterrents, such as larger dogs.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of allowing individuals to shoot wildlife, with some arguing for professional culling instead of personal action.
  • Participants discuss the appropriateness of carrying firearms in different settings, with some advocating for calling animal control in urban areas rather than taking matters into one's own hands.
  • There are references to historical hunting practices and the potential for cruelty in wildlife management, highlighting the need for regulation and accountability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the management of coyotes, the ethics of shooting them, and the appropriate responses to wildlife encounters.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the effectiveness and morality of shooting coyotes, while others emphasize the need for proper regulation in wildlife management. The discussion reflects a variety of personal experiences and opinions on the interaction between humans and wildlife.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in wildlife management, urban planning in relation to animal control, and the ethical considerations of human-wildlife interactions may find this discussion relevant.

  • #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: