Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rob Mullen, an artist, expedition canoeist and naturalist who lives in West Bolton. He is the founder and director of the Wilderness River Expedition Art Fellowship (WREAF), now at the Center for Circumpolar Studies.
[T]he House has passed H.636 and the Senate will take it up next week. I support much of the bill, but in this commentary I deal only with the coyote killing contest ban portion and with the Coyote Population Report from the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department to the House and Senate natural resources committees last month. The report was in response to a request by the House to explain the rationale for the current management regimen for coyotes.
Unlike deer, bears, squirrels, rabbits, turkey and partridge (grouse), coyotes can be killed without limit, using bait and hounds, day and night, 365 days a year. Outgrowths of this unfettered open season are “coyote killing derbies” with varying prizes for categories such as the biggest, the smallest and the most.
I grew up here steeped in a long deer hunting tradition which I strongly support. That tradition came with ethical lessons that started years before I could hunt. One summer afternoon when I wasn’t quite 4, my father caught my brother and me torturing a bloodsucker. We got a lecture that has stayed with me to this day. It had two main points:
People who torture or kill without need (even bloodsuckers) are usually acting out of fear because they are ignorant, cowards or sociopaths. Giving us the benefit of the doubt, he encouraged us to learn about bloodsuckers (I almost became a limnologist at UVM).
His main point, however, was “Kill only for need, and if you need to kill, kill quickly.”
Coyote derbies inherently violate that ethic.
I have high regard for the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. However, their Coyote Report strongly hints at outdated traditions and niche politics trumping science and evolving ethics. To summarize the schizophrenic internal structure of the report:
• The department acknowledged that the current limitless open season is a product of when coyotes were considered vermin.
• The department acknowledged that coyotes are not vermin; they are permanent members of Vermont’s wild fauna and perform valuable ecological services.
• The department acknowledged that coyotes are not an overall threat to the deer herd.
• The department acknowledged that coyotes need no population control.
• The department acknowledged that the open season/no limit killing of coyotes causes “polarization of Vermont communities.”
• The department acknowledged that coyote derbies potentially harm the hunting tradition in Vermont.
• Yet the department suggests changing nothing.
The Fish & Wildlife Department’s two main rationales for doing nothing:
• Coyotes are dangerous and must be kept fearful of humans. The report detailed the only two cases of fatal coyote attacks on humans known to have ever occurred in North America and point out that hunting was not allowed where these attacks occurred. No one is talking about banning hunting, and moose kill far more people in purposeful attacks (the department is on the verge of virtually banning moose hunting). The department cited “Coyote Attacks on Humans” to cherry-pick the point that there had been a 20-fold increase in coyote attacks on people (in Chicago) and that hunting was the only way to control this scourge. Why regular hunting, with seasons and bag limits, like on all other game species wouldn’t suffice is not addressed. Moreover, the study’s authors conclude that the best solution to the coyote attack problem in Chicago was not hunting, but to stop accidental and purposeful feeding of the coyotes. The Fish & Wildlife Department ignored that conclusion.
• The coyote population is not endangered by current policy. The department approaches wildlife science from a population perspective, however, sheer numbers are not the only metric of a healthy population. Random killing of pack members can destabilize packs which are then more likely to attempt preying on domestic stock. It is likely true that the current regulations are not a threat to our coyote population. However, just because you can kill them in unlimited numbers is no reason to wallow in it. (Nothing in this bill would affect landowners’ existing right under separate statute to protect property and stock from coyotes.)
The early parts of the report seemed a sop to people who appreciate coyotes’ role in the ecosystem and who are appalled at the carnage and cruelty displayed on Facebook by some coyote hunters. Concomitantly, the conclusion of the report, illogically disconnected from the “evidence” provided, was “holding the line” for a vocal minority who have used the rather thin and hyper-paranoid trope that any restriction is stepping onto the slippery slope of Bambi-ism and gun confiscation.
H.636 is good for Vermonters, human and wild.
