April 24, 2018

Meta-Analysis of Coyote Diet Reveals Differences by Geographical Region

Abstract

It has been posited that coyotes (Canis latrans) in the Northeast eat more deer than those in the Midwest or other parts of the country due to their increased size. Further, it has also been posited that Northeastern coyotes do not frequently eat small mammals, creating a trophic cascade that increases the incidence of Lyme disease. However, no one has synthesized the many studies of coyote diets to quantitatively test these hypotheses. We examined 18 studies of the diet of coyotes from the Northeast and the Midwest and conducted a meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that the diet of coyotes in the Northeast differs from that of coyotes in the Midwest. Our results show that deer occur significantly more in the diet of Northeastern coyotes than in the diet of Midwestern coyotes, while small mammals occur significantly less. The occurrence of rabbits, hares, birds, vegetation, and fruit do not differ significantly by region. This supports the hypothesis that Northeastern coyotes, due to their larger size and hybridization with wolves, are better adapted at hunting large prey. Although Northeastern coyotes eat fewer small mammals than Midwestern coyotes, small mammals are still a common component of the Northeastern coyote diet. Thus the abundance of Northeastern coyotes is not likely to be positively correlated to the incidence of Lyme disease.<<<Read More>>>

Share

A Call for a Possible Bounty on Coyotes Because of Disease Spread

Jon Lund is the owner and publisher of the Maine Sportsman magazine. In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.

Maine got along just fine before the coyote took over the countryside and contrary to the many statements made otherwise, we don’t need them.

However, there is something else I’d like to touch base with readers about that Mr. Lund brings up in his article. This has to do with the use of chemicals and/or “natural” elements to ward off ticks and insect bites.

I’m sure that the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone else who stands to make a profit from their drugs to treat Lyme and other diseases, has thoroughly hyped the presence of ticks and instilled ample fear into the masses. After all, when the people live in fear they will do most anything.

Lund speaks specifically about permethrin. Permethrin is a common ingredient found in compounds marketed as insect repellents or killers. Basically, it attacks the central nervous system of insects.

Permethrin is a synthetic, or man-made, product derived from pyrethrin.

Most fact sheets available to the consumer paint the picture of permethrin/pyrethrin as mostly harmless even though long-term effects have not been studied. Some believe that using products that contain permethrin presents a higher risk of health issues than the odds of getting bit by a tick that will infect you with Lyme or other diseases. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. But to make that decision honestly, you should make the effort to understand the presented “remedies” and “threats.” It’s your health. Know what you are doing.

Lund takes the time to explain how ticks are spread around (I don’t find any factual claims that global warming is the culprit) and refers to a study where “…a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks.”

The same study tells us that the incidence and presence of Lyme disease are not related to the abundance of deer but to the absence of key small predators. “We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.”

This claim is in direct contradiction to the theory that predators kill only the sick of the prey species and justifies the “need” for predators to keep our ecosystems healthy. Not only is there no evidence that the presence of large predators reduces the presence of disease in ecosystems, this study seems to prove the exact opposite.

We forget or never learned history. Large predators like wolves and coyotes were not tolerated on the landscape by early settlers. And there were reasons for that, some of which include not only the destruction of property caused by these critters but it was known that they carried and spread diseases, many of which are harmful and even deadly to humans.

And yet, today, there is an all-out effort to protect these same predators. It appears that for some anyway, the demand for an abundance of coyotes at the expense of public health is just fine and dandy. I don’t see it that way at all and I’m not alone.

As the trend continues in the direction that it is headed, it should be fairly easy to predict there will be increased fall-out about protecting any animal that spreads dangerous diseases among the people. Few tolerate the presence of rats knowing and remembering the unbelievable death and destruction caused by the bubonic plague. Is there a difference in protecting the health and safety of the public because one culprit is a nasty rat and the other is a nasty wild dog?

Mr. Lund is correct in asking the question about the role of coyotes in Maine, or anywhere else, where, according to provided data, the coyote is directly affecting the growth, perpetuation and spread of Lyme disease.

If Maine cannot effectively control the population of coyotes for public health and safety with the current management strategies, then it may be time to look at something more effective.

It is dishonest by the many who blame hunting and trapping for the decimation and/or extirpation of wolves and coyotes but go out of their way to deny that hunting and trapping of the same animals today have any effect on reducing their population numbers.

Many decades ago when it was decided by governments that wolves and coyotes were destroying property and spreading diseases, one of the elements employed to rid the landscape of the nasty canines and the diseases they spread was a bounty system. Any bounty must be attractive enough to draw enough to the plan. What is the limit in the cost of healthcare?

Such a suggestion will be vehemently opposed by many, especially those who hate hunting and trapping. They are wrong that think people like Jon Lund and myself might promote a bounty system for coyotes only for improving deer hunting. Little do these people know and understand the real conservation of wildlife.

In the normal world which is being left in the dust, there would be no question as to what is the right thing to do. Normalcy tells us public health and safety take precedence over animals and the spread of disease. One has to wonder what the extent of the bubonic plague would have been like if people had known and took real action to get rid of the rats that spread the disease.

But, we live in a Post-Normal world now where many things are upside-down. Are we to wait until more and more people get sick and die before we begin to act? Are we serious about finding a cure to a problem or is there just too much money to be made along with the genocide many promote?

It appears so.

Share

Are Hybrid Wild Dogs So Wonderful for Our Ecosystems?

Wolf advocates, in broken record fashion, always resort to the false claim that having wolves in every corner of our landscape is “good for a healthy ecosystem.” Is it?

The claim is that there were abundant wolves in every state of the Union…once. Perhaps that is true, perhaps not. Real historic accounts reveal that even if wolves were in every state of the Lower 48, they did not exist in numbers that some seem to think they did and are demanding that they do today.

When Teddy Roosevelt traveled throughout the West and the Rocky Mountains, he toiled to document the differences between wolves and coyotes and pointed out that each breed of wild dog had different names often depicting the region in which they inhabited. He also pointed out that these wild dog breeds essentially remained geographically separate. This separation limited, or even eliminated any kind of interbreeding between coyotes and wolves. So, one has to ask if this phenomenon of mixed breeds of wild dogs is a modern era event.

When one examines the journals of Lewis and Clark as well as the explorers and trappers that soon followed Lewis and Clark, we see that wild game was not widespread and abundant. It was found in certain pockets. As a matter of fact, often these explorers nearly starved to death due to lack of food from hunting. We also find scant accounts of encounters with wolves.

I recently have been rereading “The Journal of a Trapper” by Osborne Russell. On rare occasions, he mentions the distant howl of a wolf but never an encounter. Is all of this evidence that wolves existed in abundance, so much so that with the number of wolves we have today, along with the number of coyotes, cross-breeding was inevitable?

If wolves and coyotes are important to an ecosystem, as is claimed, should it also be important that we do what we can to ensure that a wolf remains a wolf and a coyote a coyote? That is not what is happening as DNA testing of wild canines is revealing. If the distinct qualities of each canine species become blurred what then becomes of the animal so many are claiming to be wanting to save? The other question is what changes in our ecosystem and what dangers do these changes put on the rest of the items within those ecosystems?

In a recent article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about hybrid coyotes/wolves, a Maine wildlife biologist is quoted as saying that he wonders “what additional wolf-like traits will mean for the future of coyotes.” The article continues to quote the biologist about this subject: “Whether these wolf genes are conferring some kind of advantage to these coyotes,” he said, “that’s where it really gets interesting.”

Interesting may be a bit mild in terms of the possible serious complications to our ecosystems from a mixed bag species we know nothing about. It appears that to this point in time, our wildlife biologists and managers have had only to deal with the wolf and the coyote. Over time and through studies and experience, scientists have learned about these creatures and their behaviors. Along with these, they have discovered how each species interacts with everything within an ecosystem. Throw into this equation a new breed of animal, a hybrid wild to semi-wild canine and what changes? What other species are now being put at risk because some have chosen to artificially and unnaturally grow, by protection, wolves and coyotes and all other large predators? No matter how much some of these people want to rid man from the landscape, thinking that somehow we are ruining everything for the poor animals, it isn’t going to happen. Get over it. Time to move on.

It makes little sense that some would argue that large predators need to be restored to their historic habitats because of the importance of their perceived “in balance” ecosystems while in their effort, mostly due to historical ignorance, attempt to force unlimited numbers of their favorite animals into habitats that not only may not have the room but in so doing destroy other species. Isn’t this selfish, reckless abandon? Perhaps it’s just plain insanity.

A member of the coyote advocate group Project Coyote was quoted in the above linked-to article when referencing coyote management, “If we leave them alone, they will self-regulate.” Not only has this claim been repeatedly proven as a falsehood, consider what is being said here. “If we leave them alone,” is essentially not being practiced by anyone, including the group Project Coyote. It has always amazed me that these clowns will yell and scream in protest that man is attempting to manipulate wildlife in order to meet the social demands of people, and sometimes will even employ a bit of science in their work, while they do all that they can to manipulate the same species for their own selfish purposes. But, I thought that “if we leave them alone, they will self-regulate.” In other words, they want us to leave them alone but they can do as their agenda demands.

From everything I have read and researched, it appears to me that this hybridization of wild canines is a recent phenomenon brought about by the protection of the species. At the rate we are going, there will no longer be wolves or coyotes anywhere where there are human settlements. Perhaps it will be more drastic than that in time. This may solve the problem of keeping the wolf in the habitat where it belongs isolated from human-settled landscapes, but of the actions in place now, what kind of creature are we left with roaming undauntedly on our landscape and what threats from disease and the dangers to other species will exist?

These questions need to be answered before we keep up this foolishness of predator protection and demanding a wolf in every yard.

Share

Coywolves in Maine Using Wolf Tactics To Bring Down Healthy Buck

The below photograph was sent to me from people I know in Maine. It was taken with a game camera from a location in Eastern Maine.

We know that genetically the wild dogs in Maine are a hybrid mixture of coyote, wolf, feral dog and domestic dog. It appears from this photo and others similar to it that I have seen, that Maine’s “coywolves” certainly have inherited more size and hunting tactics employed by wolves to bring down large prey such as the nice mature, healthy buck shown in the picture.

The myths of predator/prey relationships perpetuated by the ignorant believe that wolves/coyotes only kill sick prey and have no idea that this is simply not true or how the wild dogs go about eating and killing their prey while the prey is still alive, as is depicted in this photograph. For this kind of hunting, there is no such thing as an instant or “humane” kill.

Share

They Say It Don’t Happen: Coyotes Eating Buck Alive

Share

Echinococcus Multilocularis Found in One Quarter of Wolves, Coyotes, Foxes

“Echinococcus multilocularis is a tiny tapeworm less than four millimetres long. Its life cycle begins when small rodents, such as mice and voles, consume its eggs, which then form cysts on their liver, lungs, brain and other organs. When dogs or cats eat infected rodents, larvae within the cysts develop into adult tapeworms. Infected dogs and cats release tapeworm eggs in their excrement, which can be eaten by rodents to start the tapeworm’s life cycle again.

Humans can inadvertently consume tapeworm eggs if they handle the excrement of infected dogs and then touch their own food, or if they eat things — such as berries, mushrooms or herbs — that are contaminated by infected dog or cat droppings.

If that happens, tapeworm cysts can spread throughout the person’s liver and other organs like a tumour.” <<<Read More>>>

Share

Colorado Man Survives Attack by Three “Coyotes”

Note that in this article, it prattles on about how rare attacks by coyotes are and at the same time telling us that only 89 attacks by “coyotes” have been reported and verified in the United States, and two fatalities. RARE? The majority of “attacks” are never reported and we know not how many of those reported went unverified.

We know little about this particular attack but as long as authorities insist on irresponsibly reporting how harmless large predators are to humans, more attacks will happen due to ignorance and the wrong belief that wild animals “are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

Even though God told Noah and his offspring: “Also the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heaven, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.” (Genesis 9:2), the times they are changing. For countless reasons things are not as they once were. God promised the animals would fear us, but He also warned us that sin combined with tribulations of the final days, animals would begin to terrorize people.

Note also that the article states that the majority of “coyote” attacks happen “near the suburban-wildland interface.” This tells us that the growing trend is a real conflict between attempts to allow large predators to go unchecked while forcing people to “learn to live with them.” Animals may fear us but with too many of them and a shrinking habitat, it is completely unpredictable what a starving large predator will do. When the predator sees man as a meal, all bets are off that the animal is going to have much fear of man.

Share

In Post Fact Era, Creatures Are Smarter Than Creator

A few days ago there were a few comments being made on a previous post about how coyotes, when attempts are made by those interested in controlling their population numbers, will simply reproduce more to compensate for their losses. If this idea, to humanize the existence of animals, both wild and domestic, is true, then, as was also pointed out by a reader, all animals must be endowed by their Creator with the same intelligence level to increase their reproductive rate in order to compensate for mortality losses. Or as one person wrote on another website to answer someone’s question about “Why animals reproduce?”, we find this response:

“By the process of reproduction, which is of course natural for all animals, they ensure that the survival and balance of their species is maintained in this world. The process of reproduction basically compensates the loss of species by the mortality. It is as simple as that.”

Is it that simple? Perhaps in a simpleton’s mind – one that insists to exist in this “Post Fact” era of Scientism, Romance Biology and VooDoo Science. I suppose it’s all a part of perverse animal worship, hatred toward man’s existence and a brainwashed desire to change and control everything anybody does that isn’t in line with one’s own ideology.

If it was “as simple as that” why then, have species gone extinct?

In addition, as one reader pointed out, if animals have the intelligence or some automated response mechanism to compensate mortality through increased reproduction then there would never be any changes to the balance of any and all species. Those who believe in “Balance of Nature” also believe in the concept being discussed here. But, none of this makes any sense. If, in opposition to the animal protectionists, responsible wildlife managers attempt to implement a means of controlling coyote numbers, which causes the wild dogs to increase reproduction for losses, as is believed by far too many people, then when man hunts game animals, like deer, bear, moose, elk, grouse, ducks, pheasants, and all sorts of other yummy things, those animals will also get their act together and reproduce more to compensate for losses. How brilliant. Balance of nature is remarkable?

Of course the dog lover, believes this unbelievable ability to recognize mortality is endemic only to wild dogs and doesn’t exist in any other animal….well, unless, of course, that animal is something they are in love with and don’t want to share the resource with anyone else.

It’s odd that if man hunts and kills wild dogs, “they only reproduce more to compensate losses” but when the same men hunt deer, bear, elk, moose, etc. it makes the species go instinct.

When you listen to the words spoken by these insane people about wild dogs, they are the first to blame the extirpation of wolves in the Lower 48 States, on hunting and trapping. But I thought hunting and trapping, i.e., killing of these animal, only caused them to reproduce more?

According to the brain trust of the environmental nuts, the Post Fact era geniuses, hunters are responsible for killing anything that dies. And yet, when convenient to the narrative, hunting only causes increased reproduction to compensate for losses.

As the saying goes, you can’t make this stuff up.

Share

Predators: You Built it Tarzan! You Climb it!

Officials from the town of Cape Elizabeth in Maine have issued a warning to people who walk trails in the region because a couple of coyotes were spotted by a walker. Reading some of the comments left by readers underscores the ignorance of dealing with predators. It should also drive home the fact that social demands by ignorant Romance Biologists and Voodoo Scientists should not have sway over wildlife management. But, now that it has and does, they don’t know how to deal with it, they don’t understand any of it, and the best they can come up with is childish, snide comments that range anywhere from “beautiful animal” to “I’m not sure what the fuss is.” In addition, some readers scoff and ridicule the fact that, for whatever the reasons, police have to warn people to be vigilant of predators while walking in the woods (this term is used loosely). One reader wanted to know if the coyotes “behaved in an un-natural way” – as if they understand and could recognize what a coyote’s “natural” behavior would be.

With all of this brought to the forefront with media reports, the events of people regularly encountering coyotes, or any over protected large animal predator, are of their own creation and it appears those who demand protection of predators, such as coyotes, run scared when they encounter the results of their own actions and demand government do something about it. Perhaps a zoo would work better for these people.

I was asked just the other day if I thought people were as stupid as they are being treated. An example would be printing on the bottom of water bottles, “Open Other End.” Well, each of us will have to decide that for ourselves, but it did set off a period of story sharing of real life events that prove the stupidity. But, it is pointless to actually share those events because if you’re not that stupid, you already know of such events. If you are that stupid, my telling you that certainly will have no effect.

Therefore, enjoy your creation. Perhaps you can make friends with your neighborhood coyote; bring him food daily and love and cuddle the little “beautiful creature.” “He has every right to live where he wants to,” I read in another report this morning. And, not that it would matter to you, but watch out for the 50-some diseases, viruses and parasites them beautiful creatures carry and are more than willing to share.

There’s an expression that goes along with a physical display of one’s First Amendment right that says: You built it Tarzan. You climb it!

Share

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share