The New York Times on the growing problem of urban areas being invaded by dangerous wild animals . . . Coyotes Are Colonizing Cities. Step Forward the Urban Hunter.
Dennis Murphy sniffed the bobcat urine he uses to lure his prey. He checked the silencer on his AR-15 assault rifle and loaded a few snares into his Ford pickup.
“Let’s go kill some coyotes,” he said.
But he wasn’t heading for the wilderness. Mr. Murphy’s stalking ground is on the contentious new frontier where hunters are clashing with conservationists: cities and suburbs.
Predictably, animal rights types and hunting haters claim that people, rather than invasive species, are the real problem.
…The hunters have come after them, stalking the predators in settings like strip mall parking lots, housing tract cul-de-sacs, and plazas in the shadow of skyscrapers.
The growing popularity of urban hunting is igniting a fierce debate over the perils and benefits coyotes pose in populated areas, and whether city dwellers ought to adapt to living alongside a cunning predator that has thrived since one of its top adversaries, the gray wolf, has been all but wiped out in much of the continent.
And while hunting coyotes is actually legal in some populated areas, The Times makes sure to include examples of the inevitable problems.
Coyotes can be hunted legally in many built-up areas, but it sometimes leads to tragic mishaps. In New York State, a hunter in the upstate town of Sweden said he thought he was aiming his rifle at a coyote in February when he mistakenly shot a man in the abdomen. The hunter was charged with second-degree assault.
A licensed crossbow hunter in Readington Township, N.J., killed a family’s Alaskan shepherd after mistaking the dog for a coyote. A hunt in Pocatello, Idaho, went awry in March when an M-44 device, designed to propel a cyanide capsule into a coyote’s mouth, instead sprayed cyanide onto a 14-year-old boy, injuring him and killing his family’s dog.
Leave aside the documented instances of coyotes mauling and killing humans, we must remember that coyotes are people, too.
“Coyotes are complex sentient beings with individual personalities,” said Camilla H. Fox, the founder and executive director of Project Coyote, a conservation group. “This doesn’t mean that aggressive coyotes don’t exist, but we need to learn how to minimize conflicts in our cities, instead of making things worse,” she added, pointing to measures like securing garbage cans and keeping dogs on leashes in areas where coyotes may roam.
More than that, the privilege of coyotes moving into your neighborhood is something to be embraced by urban-dwelling humans.
“The coyotes among us provide an opportunity to live next to an animal indigenous to North America whose roots go back five million years,” said Dan Flores, a historian who explored the species’ evolution in his book “Coyote America.”
“This is a gift,” he emphasized, “to be reminded that we still live in a world that’s wild.”
1.25 million hand gun owners out of a population of 20 million? That’s WAY below the estimated national average of 30-40%. I guess it is true that a very large percentage of NY gun owners are now defacto felons by choice. Oh the horror! When will these “dangerous” folk be put away for life? For the children of course.
Yotes make no distinctions between squirrels, rabbits, cats, dogs and toddlers. They aren’t just a nuisance, they are dangerous, apex predators. Almost as dangerous as the Liberal Terrorists™️ that protect them.
The liberals need to study conservation and how vicious coyotes are in urban areas.
My favorite cartridge for yote’s is .300 win mag.
I was going to read the article just because I’ve got too much time on my hands today. But the first thing I read at the top of the article is this; ‘HuffPost spoke with 11 black gun owners to figure out what gun ownership means in a country determined to keep its black populace unarmed.’
Who the hell is ‘determined to keep it’s black populace unarmed’? I’m not. The NRA isn’t. The GOP isn’t. Oh yea it’s the Democrats who are determined to keep blacks unarmed. They must be projecting their racist values on the whole rest of the country.
Same here. I started reading but stopped because my experiences and those of people I know have been completely different than those described in the article. It felt like it was designed to discourage people.
Yea, I skimmed through it. I think at least half actually didn’t carry even though they had permits because ‘it doesn’t make me safer’ because cops will shoot me or something. One guy was worried that what happened to Trayvon Martin could happen to him – like yea, if you’re unarmed and beating another guys head into the concrete and he happens to have a gun, yea, then you could end up like Trayvon. I think there’s a lot of confirmation bias here. But they did have Maj Toure and a couple of other firearm enthusiasts. Still seemed like an article intent on convincing black people that it’s not safe for them to carry a weapon though.
Regardless of what one believes was the cause of the Cival War, the Confederates were treasonists- PERIOD. I think it’s antipatriotic and even an act of treason in its self to have EVER allowed Confedreate statutes to be errected on American soil. Same goes for flying the Confederate flag.
You totally misunderstand the political realities of the times. The states considered themselves near to be sovereign nations, combined in a pact to do better as a group than as complete independents. The states never imagined that there would be a “nation” of states as we know it today. The people of the states owed allegiance to the state first, and foremost. Allegiance to a national government was secondary, and conditional (else there would have been no need of the ninth and tenth amendments. The states retained the right to rescind membership in the compact called “The United States”. That phrase was not a declaration of nationhood, but an acknowledgment of cooperation. “The United States” as a political unit superior to the states was as irrational to the founders as would be the notion that a coordinating agency called “The United Nations” established a sovereign world government. If states has the independent and sovereign power to enter an agreement, they certainly retained the sovereign power to remove themselves from it. So…..
By means of secession, the southern states removed themselves from the coordinating compact called the Constitution. Thence removed, they could not, as a matter of law and logic, commit treason against the compact of states called “The United States”. The much-ignored descriptor “The War Between The States” is actually the most accurate as it was truly a war between sovereign states, not a civil war as generally describes war between a superior and absolute state, and the people of that state’s political subdivisions/provinces. Once the southern states seceded, any oath to a dependent entity (the US government) was moot. Seceded states were no longer part of “The United States”, and could not be held accountable to oaths and allegiances of those “United States”.
It would do you good to actually read the writings of the “thinkers” of the times (1840-1860) regarding states, central government, compacts, union.
“Some people say it’s a contradiction for me as an African-American man to have a position: “When they wrote the Second Amendment, they didn’t mean it for you.” I don’t give a f*** who they meant it for. It’s mine now.”
C.S.: I like your approach! Constitutionally guaranteed rights are guaranteed for everyone. Working for the day when everyone recognizes that and acts that way.
“…we must remember that coyotes are people, too.” I’m seriously triggered by this.
Thought the same thing when I read that! I’m not a particularly philosophical person, but it makes you wonder about the viewpoints of the people of the world when they hold animals to be at the same level as us…
I take it you are a cat person.
Everyone seems to be missing the oddest part of this article…the New York Times admitted that an AR-15 not only can be used for things that don’t involve killing dozens of people, but that it can be a hunting weapon. Two pillars of the anti-modern rifle belief system refuted by a hard-left rag in a single sentence.
AND it had a suppressor!
Don’t want to disturb the muggles at their breakfast.
Wait, don’t we need a new NICS fix bill to address this? This lawsuit would indicate that NICS should have already had the info that bill touches on.
[/sarc]
I hope this bill is dismissed quickly so as not to waste TOO much taxpayer money.
Repeal NICS and all infringements.
NICS isn’t – or shouldn’t-be – the point. It’s the FBI’s database that ought to be the point. A convicted felon who is NOT reported to the FBI is a prohibited-person who will show up in NEITHER:
– NICS
– NCIC
I care less about whether the felon is stopped at an FFL; I care more about whether he is discovered to be a felon-in-possession when stopped by a cop.
Let’s suppose we wish for an America where every State is Constitutional Carry. A prohibited person crosses paths with a cop, whether by roadside, on a sidewalk, or a domestic incident call. Cop finds a guy with a gun. Great! Exercising his 2A rights! But is he a prohibited person?
Gee, how is the cop to know? The gun with the gun might be a felon, lunatic, illegal alien. If his name doesn’t show up in NCIC, the cop must presume him to be exercising his 2A rights.
Some PotG think it’s just great that felons, lunatics and illegal aliens have a natural right to keep and bear arms. However, this is a difficult position to argue vs. the vast majority of voters (and even a majority of gun owners). Whose rights do we want to defend first? Those of us who are NOT felons/crazy/illegal-aliens? Do we think we might get more traction with the argument that we ought to be enforcing felon-in-possession instead of UBC?
Unincarcerated felons being denied their civil rights is unconstitutional. Anybody who is not locked up should have all their civil rights, full stop.
Even from a practical standpoint, by definition a felon committed their first felony at some point. Before that point their rights were fully intact and no UBC or any other infringement would have stopped them from beginning their life of crime.
Separating people from their civil rights only serves to create an underclass of people that can be harassed and imprisoned at will.
I do agree that we need reminders that the world we live in is wild. That’s exactly why I carry a gun.
#1: Registration
Able-bodied men of militia age were obliged to enroll and to present their arms for inspection. If our States would kindly pass a militia law calling for enrollment and musters I have no doubt that we would comply; and, submit to the presentation of exactly 1 AR-15 each for validation that it is in good working order.
Other arms we keep for non-militia purposes need not be registered for to do so would serve no purpose such as that cited by the OP.
#2: Public carry
I don’t see how the OP evidences no right to public carry. He sites no laws to that effect. In the early colonial era there were laws obliging public carry, e.g. to church.
#3: Stand-your-ground laws
SYG is not well understood. One’s obligation was to retreat until his back was against the wall. This notion was in an era of arms by cutlery, not guns. The modern notion is that one should retreat if one can do so with complete safety; but, such is rarely the case. If one can retreat with greater safety than engaging in combat it is prudent to consider that alternative. However, the main purpose of SYG is to truncate malicious prosecution in cases where the State tries to persuade the jury that – with 20:20 hindsight – the prosecutor is convinced that the self-defender had a viable path of retreat.
#4: Safe storage laws
The premise here seems to be that if we can find one case – e.g., some municipal government – in the Constitutional era that passed a law, the Constitutionality of any comparable law is established dispositivly. Very well, then we must guard our liberty viciously lest we allow any encroachment whatsoever undermine our Rights.
#5: Loyalty oaths
This is an interesting argument that we ought to give more thought. It is true that the revolutionaries disarmed the loyalists whenever they could. And, of course, the British disarmed the revolutionaries whenever they could. The Revolutionary war was triggered by the march to Concord.
The text of the 2A includes the right “of the People”; i.e., while all men are created equal and have the natural right to life and the means to defend it, Congress is obliged to respect that right of “the PEOPLE” alone.
If there were any loyalists remaining in America it would certainly be within the power of Congress to disarm them. Just as Congress has disarmed illegal aliens.
One might – here – advance the argument that the Federal government could disarm anyone that was not loyal to the regime now in power; i.e., the President and current Congress. But, then, we would have to consider the counter-argument that the current government might be tyrannous. And if it were so it would be a grievous fault, and grievously would this regime have to answer for it. The founding generation that ratified the Constitution and its 2A would not have intended that any large mass of them could be disarmed by the government merely because those disarmed were deemed not to be loyal to the current regime.
I lived in coastal Rhode Island with a yote, foxes, groundhogs, deer and a bald eagle in my backyard (which I left wild). When I rode my mountain bike through the southern Rhode Island woods at night, a pack of yotes would often run alongside me, keeping a respectful distance.
Most wild things are no danger to humans, but the coyote is a special case. When hungry, they’ll eat your household pets and children, your livestock and maybe you.
In urban areas, they are a clear and present danger and need to be removed. In the deep woods and other places where they belong, they are generally not harmful. The problem with the coyote is that he will not stay where he belongs, which brings him into conflict with man.
“…other places where they belong, they are generally not harmful.”
Tell that to the sheep herders, cattlemen and other farmers out here in flyover country. Coyotes, wolves and other predators take a terrible toll, and our pets and small children are no safer either.
That’s because you’re putting out a free buffet for them. A ranch without a tall fence is just a buffet.
“Refugees and immigrants are complex sentient beings with individual personalities,” said Camilla H. Fox, the founder and executive director of Project White Genocide, a Liberal Progressive Social Justice group. “This doesn’t mean that aggressive refugees and immigrants don’t exist, but we need to learn how to minimize conflicts in our cities, instead of making things worse,” she added, pointing to measures like securing garbage cans and keeping supple, nubile children on leashes in areas where refugees and immigrants may roam.
See how that works? These people really are self-destructive in every way. Hopefully they’ll change their tune pretty quickly the first time a coyote snatches one of their 37 cats or their frou-frou purse-dog.
Reading Courtney Cable’s fearful admission makes me wonder how many black people are afraid to eat at a lunch counter in the South.
Probably no one, but only because so many people did. That’s the key. As long as a black person legally carrying is a rare event, blacks (and others) in that position will be regarded as suspicious. When it becomes more common and less atypical, the cops will react accordingly.
He checked the suppressor on his AR-15 hunting rifle and loaded a few snares into his Ford pickup.
FIFY NYT.
Seems like the best course is to scrap NICS altogether. Ineffective and expensive registries have been shutdown all over. NICS should be as well. I know, gov, you get emotionally attached to things and you’d rather ride the stock down to zero than bail ASAP but that self destructive path does nobody any good.
A hunt in Pocatello, Idaho, went awry in March when an M-44 device, designed to propel a cyanide capsule into a coyote’s mouth, instead sprayed cyanide onto a 14-year-old boy, injuring him and killing his family’s dog.
That’s the NY Slimes for you, falsely blaming hunters for the actions of the Federal Government. All The Lies That Aren’t Fit To Print seems to be their motto.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/17/federal-cyanide-trap-injures-eastern-idaho-boy-kills-dog.html
My first wife had no problem with guns, but she did prefer swords. I built her an AR and helped her with handgun choices.
My new wife likes both. She prefers old doubles and 1911s, but is cool with anything.
If both parties are agreeable, then that’s fine. But it’s obvious from his commentary that it’s not mutual, and he’s wearing the pantyhose in that relationship.
I’m an upstanding, white, affluent lawyer living in an idyllic suburb.
And I’m fucking terrified of the police.
My wife has so far received two DWBs since we moved here.
Have her hand over her license, registration–and your business card–when she is stopped. DWB is a real thing.
My son and his friend…both white…have been stopped by cops while in “black” neighborhoods…
is that profiling? is that DWW?
Hmmm?
The cops were actually honest and told them they stopped them because they were white in a black ‘hood…have problems with drug buys
I would have a bigger problem if they did not just check the papers and let you go. If they are wanting to do a patdown or vehicle search for no reason, for examples.
I would want to be more accountable as an officer…be able to articulate WHY I stopped a particular vehicle or person…and be able to tell that person…honestly…why they were being stopped.
Imagine the person you stop is your Mom or Grandmother…unless they are trying to kill you, of course.
Gun buy backs are a good start.
I had a P229 Legion – I carried it twice before I sold it. Thing was a fucking brick. Maybe you could daily it if you’re Hafthor Bjornsson.
No. Criminals are going to do crime and violence with or without guns.
The object then becomes to arm all non criminal folk so the criminals job is more dangerous.
Constitutional carry is coming. The left has lost this battle. They appear to be unable to see that. But it’s a done deal.
What we need now is a tax incentive program to encourage folks to buy and carry their guns.
Criminals will do violence with or without guns. That’s true. And, OUR issue with this is that when criminals do violence with guns they increment the crime-by-gun statistics. Our interest is – clearly – to reduce crime-by-guns statistics. Then, the pressure will ease (or refocus on some other issue) on guns in civilian hands.
What we need to do next is to promote knife-rights. Criminals should find themselves facing lesser sentences if they commit a crime with a knife vs. a gun. If committed with a club the penalty should be lower; and if by strong-arm, lesser still.
You see, the issue is THE GUN, not the instrumentality. We concealed-carriers will all be safer if criminals attempt to rob us with knives or clubs while we are armed with handguns.
Let’s have not just States’-rights but precinct-rights. The voters in each precinct might be allowed to vote on whether to accept Stop-&-Frisk in their precinct. Then, the police can take guns away from gang members who have become prohibited-persons. Yet, these gang members should retain their rights to cutlery & clubs. We should have fewer gang members and drug dealers carrying concealed guns in such precincts. (Those of us who prefer a stricter interpretation of the 4A can avoid Stop-&-Frisk neighborhoods.)
(All in Texas). You can carry a rifle damn near anywhere. If you have an LTC, you can carry a handgun almost anywhere. Anyone can carry a knife over five and a half inches most places (but less places than the gun), and it is highly restricted where you can have a club.
Sticks and stones are verbotten, AR-15s are fine for a walk into the pub. (Seriously, a lot of the gun laws prohibit the carry, licensed or otherwise, of handguns, but don’t say anything about rifles).
Huh? Why would those cities worry about NICS, not like you can buy a gun there anyway.
The best answer is to require any city with unsold guns held more than a year transfer them to the state for the state to sell, with the state retaining all proceeds.
Sure…. but it will just turn in to another requirement for them to ignore…. criminals will ignore the law no matter what the laws are.
“Is There Any Way to Stop Criminals from Getting Guns?”
No.
Next question please.
Why is it that 95% of the time the politicians wanting to pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist are Democrats? Why is it that they are the first group of politicians who want to deprive people of their guaranteed right of free speech especially when it is speech they don’t like? Why is it that they are the first to want to deprive us of our religious liberties especially when they see a way to pander to certain big money donors of a certain persuasion? I also see many of these same Democrats going to receive Communion in Church while at the same time pushing strongly for any and all types of abortion?
I don’t want Schumer from Liberal New York, Pelosi from Liberal San Francisco or Blumenthal from Liberal Connecticut telling me what I have a right do and what I don’t! I didn’t vote for those schmucks so take a long walk off a short pier and take Feinstein with you!!
Easy, make a time machine, go back in time and stop gun powder from being invented.
Oh, my guns are still here. Darn, I guess it didn’t work. Well, since that obviously never happens I guess the answer is no.
Mr. Farago has plenty wrong in that article, but a big one is saying that English common law had a duty to retreat. Virginia has had English common law for self-defense since 1607 and has always been a stand-your-ground state (unless you are part of the “problem”, in which case one must retreat as far as possible).
I was going to ask, “pocket space is at a premium, do you take a light or an extra magazine?” Then I noted that this is an evening dog-walk load so that answers that.
🤠
Coyotes are pack animals and if you have ever had to deal with domesticated dogs that have been “set free” by their city dwelling owners only to pack up with other free balling dogs you know what kind of damage they can do to farm animals! Have had to frequently hunt packed up dogs which I presume to be similar to coyotes and it is scary because they circle their prey and attack from behind! Why don’t we bait up a Liberal and stick ‘me out in an urban parking lot at night and let ‘me sweet talk the critters!!
Any one who would sit still for silly shit like this from the government, deserves what they get.
I have no sympathy for people who stay and take this crap, Get the hell out or stop crying about how bad you have it.
Possession is 9/10 of the law, I’ve heard it said. You want to hold on to those guns that belong to the People of the state? Fine. Keep them; you just bought them. Now pay up!
I’d be OK with the state just tallying up the value of the guns not sold at public, transparent auction each year, then deducting that from the state’s annual direct financial assistance to the city.
Better yet, require such auctions quarterly. Allow outside groups, like the NRA, to sue the city for three times the value of the unsold guns.
This defect could prove fatal if someone gets in a struggle over this gun. It is not uncommon for a law enforcement officer to get in a struggle over their gun. I hope no member of law enforcement carries this since it not only endangers the officer but also any innocent bystander in the path of a potentially lethal discharge.
So, if they start to confiscate, can they be sued under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment? It would appear they’re taking property without due process or just compensation. Of course, they’ll argue it’s contraband, but they’re still seizing private property.
Ralph? Anybody?
As a former NYer. Gone from NY over 20 years. I cant tell you why but………………Besides the “Safe Act” being a totally unconstitutional bunch of BS.
The recertification is a joke. Just take my word for that as a person who had/has a full carry CCW from NY State not a county based license.. Prior to the Safe Act……………Good for LIFE until death………..or if its revoked. Whichever comes first.
https://advancedleadership.harvard.edu/people/gareth-glaser
Surprise, surprise….
The gun in ur hand!
A gun right lost is lost forever in this climate. Until we get a true pro-gun court system and congress we are screwed! 50 yrs from now no guns at all maybe in 20yrs!
We better soon educate these young-ins cuz 90% of millennial’s are anti-gun pro socialism….
Hey, can I start a smart gun company with the intention of coming to market within say……. 80 years, and that be enough to satisfy the “in the business” part about owning new full auto weapons?
Finally.
I think you mean blowback, not dead blow action.
These figures are whose? Has there been an independent audit of Chicago gun crimes/shootings/murders? Why should anything involving firearms coming from the Chicago government be believed? It is all simply more anti-gun collusion?
My dad taught me that it is only right to kill for protection and for food. I’m a fat guy, but I’ve never been that hungry.
The SAFE act & related has nothing to do with guns, or even NY State. It’s simply positioning for Proconsul Cuomo-the-Younger’s presidential ambitions. So, it doesn’t have to make sense or work in any other sense.
/NY, The First Swamp
To understand NY State politics, simply remember it has the most developed and effective patronage system in the world, surpassing Russia, China, India, and even DC. NY State was a patronage and exploitation swamp before DC even existed.
Stand back. Professionals at work.
Albany – the state “capitol” – is the field admin office, while the actual power resides “down-state” around and about NYC. (This is part of why the Governor of NY State and Mayor of NY City are always in a pissing contest — they’re both trying to be in charge, simply from different office buildings. Plus, right now they have competing strategies for their presidential runs: DiBlazio as HerSelf’s purer heir, The Proconsul contrasting himself as the experienced economic pragmatist.)
NY State’s patronage / clientism is so sophisticated, they don’t even do one-party rule: some *d* party senators caucus with the *r* party, giving “the opposition” a nominal majority in that house. As a result everybody gets to rail about “those people”, and there’s about twice as much need for buying off votes to get anything done. Conveniently, this arrangement blocks anything from happening after the regular calls to clean up corruption in state government, and all sides can blame “those people” while the gravy-train rolls on.
– Every single thing the “state” administration does is for the PR, aimed at down-state statists, who form a political base. Up-State is just photo-op fodder. This makes NY State politics the ideal farm league for DC, which works the same. Also, down-state statists really think the run everything, so it’s a national, or pan-national perspective being appeased.
– Every single Up-State county passed a resolution against the SAFE act at the time; having exactly no legal standing, and provoking only the standard scorn and self-aggrandizement from down-state. Net, Cuomo-the-Younger’s response was: “See what idiots they are. This is why I *have to* do everything myself.”
– From time to time Up-State threatens to secede. Down-state inevitably screeches about “taking more money in services than they pay in taxes”, then backs off when Up-State says: “OK, we’ll do that.” Rarely Down-State threatens to secede, again backing off immediately when Up-State says: “OK, let’s do this.”
The one thing they can’t stand even more than the yahoos and yokels in the hinterlands, is being unable to lord over the yahoos and yokels in the hinterlands. Again, just like DC.
– Every single thing the state government does is easily predicted and understood in terms of Proconsul Cuomo-the-Younger’s presidential aspirations. He backed off and tried, a little, to actually do some good for the state when it was inevitably HerSelf for 8 upcoming years, capping off his political possibilities. When The Orange Crush actually won, The Proconsul got right back on his hobby horse, aiming to be the viable alternative in 2020.
Way to fo Sarah!👍👍👍
You’ve got to know you’re screwed up when even California state colleges and universities disagree – all of them have armed police.