People are needlessly being misled about large predators and the role, or lack thereof, that these large, wild carnivores play in our forests, regularly referred to as ecosystems. The term ecosystem is even misleading but I’ll leave that for another day.

I was reading a short article the other day by a self-proclaimed expert/advocate of coyotes. In this interview, the question was asked about the role coyotes can play in reintroducing wolves to Maine and regions of the Northeast. The coyote advocate says that through “education” and teaching our children about the wonderful things about coyotes, will cause our children to be more welcoming of them. This “education” evidently will include such nonsense as how important it is “to the balance of the ecosystem.”

In addition:

“Wherever wolves are not in North America, coyotes are a keystone species. So whatever animals they kill to survive, whether it’s a deer or a rodent, they affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics. They’re making those species stronger in ways that we can only glimpse the complexity of.

Their major prey are herbivores, which eat green things that other species depend on. So if you have larger herbivores, like deer, eating massive amounts of the greens that birds, butterflies, bees, and salamanders depend on, then those species go down. Foresters are concerned about the number of deer in this country, and there are very few predators for them, so what’s happening is that they’re destroying our forests.”

Every ounce of that statement is false. The coyote “expert” is labeling wolves as the “keystone species” and if there are no coyotes present, then the coyote becomes the keystone species. (Evidently bears and mountain lions don’t count?) Utter nonsense.  The term “keystone species” is a fabricated, relative term, i.e. political, that carries no actual scientific backing. Call it a human term used to influence the way people see, hear and discuss subjects such as wildlife management and the environment. Google defines “keystone species” as: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.” And what, might I ask, would the “ecosystem” “change drastically” to? The answer probably lies within someone’s ideology. Does this also mean that if a “keystone species” is added to an ecosystem, things, “would change drastically?”

Those who buy into this nonsense, want others to believe that our forests, fields, and wild animals cannot function without “keystone species,” i.e. coyotes and wolves. Their premise is based on an unscientific term that has become a household word, one that is regularly and incorrectly taught in our education factories at all levels – natural regulation, or balance of nature. This, more than likely, the result of the poor and incorrect work of an Australian ecologist, Graeme Caughley. More on this in a bit.

If we consider “balance of nature” and that a coyote is a “keystone species” that without it, “the ecosystem would change drastically,” what was going on in our ecosystems before the proliferation of coyotes and the introduction of wolves? It must have been utter chaos. How did any of us or the animals and plants survive? The same question should be asked about introducing wolves in the Northern Rockies, the Southwest and the Southeast.

How can science (real science) determine anything about “natural regulation” when they don’t understand whether wildlife is driven by food, habitat or the existence of predators, all or a combination of any? It can’t. Therefore, one can only theorize and in doing so, all elements of influence of thought become value-driven. In other words, a person or group of persons sees something a particular way based on personal value and interpretation – that value and interpretation manipulated by brainwashing and propaganda. Combine that with a perception of how they would like the ecosystem to function and we then realize the creation of nonsensical, unscientific, and romantic notions of “balanced” life among plants, animals and humans. Few can see or are willing to see, that along with these scientismistic beliefs, man is in the way and thus billions of us need to be killed in order to protect the resources. Becoming the useful idiots of Environmentalism plays right into the hands of one’s own destruction. If we could but open our eyes.

Neither a coyote nor a wolf is necessary in order that a chunk of real estate, and all that is on it, is somehow balanced. What happens is a person or group of persons decides (value driven) that any “change” that occurs, due to the introduction of wolves or coyotes, is a good thing. I guarantee others will think it’s not (value-driven). With this then comes the bombardment of utter nonsense as is demonstrated above as to what coyotes do to an ecosystem – nonsense that is fabricated, romance, fake biology.

For someone to suggest that animals and plants in an ecosystem, if man would butt out, reach some sort of equilibrium, not only does that person not understand nature itself, but are somehow placing human qualities of “social regulation” as is written above. Are we seriously to believe that a coyote eats just the right amount of deer and rodents, hand-selecting the diseased ones first, and the ones with bad genes, leaving a perfectly “balanced” and healthy population of plants and animals? In those areas where wolves and coyotes don’t exist, the ecosystems must be overrun with wild canine prey animals, with poor genes and full of disease. Are they?

Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, once wrote: “Wolves [coyotes] do not socially regulate. Instead, wolves [coyotes] are in the business of turning prey animals into more wolves [coyotes] as quickly as they can without any regard for the health of prey populations.”

And the result is the wild fluctuations of prey animal species and predators, along with the “complexity” of the collateral changes. Uncontrolled large predators do not “balance” ecosystems. They are quite capable of turning them into utter chaos of scarcity, depending upon situations that exist and the influences in place.

Dr. David Mech, recognized as an authority on wolves and wolf behavior has been quoted as saying, “We would expect wolves to kill as many prey as possible. There is little for wolves to gain by being prudent about resources within their territory.”

This speaks directly to the romantic notion that coyotes, “affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics.” Wolves and coyotes, like all wild animals, eat to survive. Scientific research has determined that wolves and coyotes, kill to eat and kill for the sake of killing. They do not have the mental capacity to adapt human social agendas to their surroundings to ensure they live in a healthy ecosystem.

There are some pockets where there may possibly be too many ungulates that are actually “destroying” the forests but it is far from the norm and even in those cases, the idea of “destruction” is a value-driven, or in some cases, an economic-driven situation. Large predators must be controlled by man. That is how we can attain and sustain any semblance of “balance” – that “balance” of which is now being handled with a combination of science and social demands by the public. Demanding the protection of all animals, including predators, in search of that value-driven, natural equilibrium, is a product of political manipulation that begins with our children from the first day of life. It is a shame that they cannot be taught the truth.

We know that it is the goal of Environmentalism to change the science of wildlife management and how it is discussed. What that means is that ideology and political agendas, will take over the normal scientific process and replace it with outcome-based, post-normal scientism, which is what balance of nature is rooted in. Proven scientific research is abandoned and replaced with changed rhetoric and talking points based on ideology and other sinister plans.

When one considers the influences in our society that have most affected how people think and discuss wildlife management, and in particular that of predator wild canines, it is no wonder the public hasn’t any truthful understanding of those creature’s habits.

Dr. Kay also tells us that there where five events that took place, that because of terrible science, or the deliberate “changing of paradigms,” that have been used over the past 40 or so years that have manipulated and changed “the way we think about wildlife management.”

The five events were, 1. Farley Mowat’s book, “Never Cry Wolf” which has been proven to be a complete work of fiction. 2. Maurice Hornocker’s mountain lion study, which claimed that mountain lions had no effect on prey animals because the lions “socially regulated.” Social regulation, is of course, a myth. 3. Isle Royale’s wolf study, an event that while some elements of scientific study can be taken from the event, Isle Royale does not resemble any typical ecosystem because of it’s isolation from the rest of the world. 4. The Kaibab Deer Incident, another claim that predators had no effect on prey species. With predators removed, the mule deer population soared to over 100,000. 5. Graeme Caughley, an Australian ecologist who developed computer models to “prove” his notion that natural regulation was driven by food availability. It was proven that his modeling was unscientific and rigged to achieve a desired outcome.

Unfortunately, because his terrible work was accepted in the world of “Ecology”, Caughley co-authored a book about wildlife management – a piece of work that is still used today in universities. And we wonder why people make such ridiculous claims about coyotes.

So long as those with agendas, the power and the control, continue to teach wildlife management fiction, what hope is there for a world in which real science drives the actions?

The United States has become a society in which perverse notions exist about animals. Those notions include placing human traits and qualities on animals and thus people want to believe that animals socially adapt seeking an equilibrium with their surroundings, much like humans do. Animals are not humans and are not even closely related in any way shape or form and yet, someone believes that coyotes will do the work of men to achieve a socially desirable, “Balance of Nature.”