Coyotes kill hiker

[walkinman]

Hey Rhode Island,

Your closing statement is a clever use of taxonomy. Pretending that the arrival of Europeans to this continent a few hundred years equates to Homo sapiens inhabiting the continent for at least 20 000 years (10-12k seems a more reasonable figure, IMO) is patently dishonest. Taxonomy is a funny thing, eh? We get to decide on the divisions, and so the way we classify Homo sapiens is a little different to the way we classify everything else; if we were honest and consistent, we'd call all the differing races of people “subspecies”. But we feel that's a little denigrating, so we don't. Hence

As a result we can make statements like yours and call them correct. I think that's intellectual dishonesty.

We also tend to call a sub/species 'invasive' when we see it's movement into a region as harmful, when it does not, we don't use that same phrase. Clever, eh? Except that different people see the same thing differently; ever talk to anyone in Wyoming about the wolf reintroduction there? Who gets to all the shots about what's a ‘problem’ and what is not?

That said, I think the language of your statement “but the fact still remains that they are a problem” is itself incorrect; they aren't the problem at all.

Cheers

Carl

[Rhode Island]

That said, I think the language of your statement “but the fact still remains that they are a problem” is itself incorrect; they aren't the problem at all.

Cheers

Carl

Yes Carl, I get it, we are the problem. That fact is not lost on me and I do not disagree with it. But, I believe in pragmatism. I don't believe that we are just going to magically erase the footprint of humanity overnight, or even over tens or hundreds of years. So the question becomes to we attempt to manage and mitigate some of the secondary effects (such as exotic species), or do we simply throw up our hands and hope that somehow humanity will see the light and change its ways. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

In many cases terminally ill patients are as likely to die from a normally non-life threatening illness, lets say pneumonia, as they are from the disease itself. Pneumonia is not the problem, but it is still a problem, no? Should we not attempt to treat these patients, because a cure is all that can really save them?

[OntPhoto]

The second coyote in the mauling death of a young hiker was shot and killed according to park officials. Skyline Trail remains closed until further assurances that it is safe.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/Sec ... story.html

[Paul Fusco]

Coyote expansion was a direct result of human modification of the eastern landscape. For 10,000 years before European settlement there were likely few to no coyotes east of the Mississippi River. While they may be native to the continent they are not, by definition, native to the eastern U.S. ...
RI

I dunno about this statement, RI.
The way I understand it, coyotes spread east in the absence of the "top-dog" predator, the gray wolf, which was virtually extirpated from the east. The red wolf of the southeast was also extirpated. With those species gone, coyotes had the opportunity to spread. Habitat changes that occurred (clearing of eastern forests) undoubtedly helped coyotes, but in the end, the opportunistic coyote took advantage of the niche that was vacated. Eastern coyotes (at least in the northeast) are thought to have expanded to the area thru southern Canada, not directly from the midwest. In their expansion, coyotes bred with some of the few gray wolves that were left, resulting in a larger coyote. Genetic analysis shows that eastern coyotes have a small amount of gray wolf in them, unlike their smaller western cousins. The only way they could have picked up wolf genes was from Canada.

In a natural range expansion, which this is, coyotes are certainly native animals. As defined in Webster's - native - in nature: natural and not refined, or altered by man.

- Paul

[Rhode Island]

If man had not extirpated the wolf would coyotes have expanded? Therefore is it really a "natural" expansion? Is it really not altered by man?

[jeff Parker]

Coyotes and wolves have and continue to co-exist in the West.

[walkinman]

Hey RhodeIsland,

I guess my point was merely the use of the language - I think we all would do well to be more careful how we frame things, because it so strongly shapes what we see - as photographers we understand that, I'm sure.

I must admit I tend to be leery of arguments that lean on “pragmatism”.

pragmatism: a lack of creativity, inability to listen, and a desire to perpetuate the mistakes of our past.

Thank Gaia that John Muir, Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, Roosevelt, Rachel Carson, Stephen Mather, David Brower, et al, were not pragmatists, eh? Pragmatists don't climb mountains.

The analogy of a terminally ill patient is interesting. Firstly, because it redirects and absolves responsibility, doesn't it? Secondly it splits the players in the game to separate groups, further creating an illusion of innocence;

it forces an “us” who are treating the sick, and a “them” who are terminally ill, and the 3rd group who are the pathogens. Remember, the terminally ill, in your situation, are not “them” but us.

I'd rather the analogy of addiction; a crack addict doing time for stealing might say the police are a problem, no? This is merely a way of deflecting the problem - the problem is addiction, and dealing with everything else is merely blindfolding ourselves. IMO, of course.

Lastly, what if the so-called “solution” here is part of the problem?

Cheers

Carl

[Abe Borker]

Just to clear confusion:

Humans first arrived on this continent at least 20,000 years ago on Beringia, now underwater. Early humans were blocked by glaciers, but rapidly expanded through alaska and canada when glaciers retreated ~15,000 years ago (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0001596)

As to the crackhead analogy, is it that ecosystems are the crack heads, the cops are adapative wildlife managment, and the real problem is the scale of human impacts on ecosystems?
So managing ecosystems to preserve biodiversity is deflecting from the real problem of "too much human impact"?

Lets talk in the terms of proximate and ultimate causes rather than confuse the issue in analogies. The ultimate cause for ecosystem degradation is human impact, but the proximate causes (that are DIRECTLY CAUSING EXTINCTIONS) are things like invasive species, habitat loss, pollution etc. As a conservationist, it's important to me to address those proximate causes, in addition to chipping away at the ultimate cause, out of control human consumption and impact. So you can actively try and protect ecosystems in the short term from aggressive proximate threats, and at the same time, focus on the long term erosion of the ultimate causes of those threats.

I want to end with brief discussion of three quotes from Aldo Leopold.

Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.

We're all conservationist's right?

We shall never achieve harmony with land, any more than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations, the important thing is not to achieve but to strive.

Al knew the ultimate causes of ecosystem damage were too big to challenge directly, but we challenge it on all fronts.

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Al's land ethic, We now have more insight leading many ecologists to believe that stability is an illusion in natural systems. Regardless, the land ethic focuses on the integrity and beauty of the biotic community. Conservation is the struggle to balance this integrity with human impacts. How could you not take a pro-active involved role in ecosystem management when the effects of people are so pervasive and disrupting harmony (as evidence in the extinction in orders of magnitude faster than species can be replaced)?

[Abe Borker]

Many proximate causes of ecosystem degradation are no longer controlled by their ultimate anthropogenic roots. Even if human impacts on ecosystems ended tomorrow, the damage that has been already done would still need to be actively mitigated to preserve biodiversity. Invasive species decimating island species will continue unless an active eradication and management stance is pursued, even if direct human impacts ended tomorrow. Climate change too has reached the point where even if we stopped polluting tomorrow, climate change will threaten species and ecosystems. Actively managing those threats is critical to saving biodiversity through this crisis.

[walkinman]

Hey Abe,

I'm sorry, I took the comments about humans "here" in context, and was referring to the Eastern US. The comments were in relation to the discussion of coyotes being invasive in the east, since they weren't there until recently, not being in Beringia.

The world is full of "active management" - more of the same will inevitably beget, no surprise, more of the same.

Cheers

Carl

[E.J. Peiker]

I have interacted with and hiked with Coyotes for many years in both completely wild and urban areas and have never had even the slightest bit of agression toward me from them so this is disturbing and makes me think there is a whole lot more to it then we know.

In fact every morning on my bike ride I have a coyote trail me for a little bit until he detects a jack rabbit or some other form of prey which he then goes after with great zeal. I would not call the coyote in the west a shy species

[Rocky Sharwell]

I had one pee on the front tire of my rental car a few years ago at Bosque when I was at the back of the Jeep...

[john j. henderson]

I had one pee on the front tire of my rental car a few years ago at Bosque when I was at the back of the Jeep...