Mr VJP

Anyone with an open mind can find plenty of factual evidence that there are certainly coyote overpopulation problems, and they do become a problem if not properly kept in check. Articles like the one linked below are common, and even the experts agree it is a problem. The trouble is, if coyote numbers are allowed to get this high because people are called prejudice or ignorant because of their opinion of the threat coyotes pose, the problem becomes too big to be effectively handled by hunting. This particular piece comes from NE PA, just over the NY State line. These people are now waking up to exactly what is in their own interests. http://www.poconorecord.com/article/20131119/News/311190327 You say your job is to challenge opinions deemed prejudiced or ignorant. Who has deemed them so? Who is it that pays you to do this job? Someone else stated the concern here: "Pay anyone enough and they will tell the public what you want them to." I'm not saying you don't firmly believe what you are being paid to say. But I do not think the "science" you have embraced on the coyote issue is coming from both sides of the scientific community. Planting seeds is great, as long as the seeds are not from harmful flora.

Yeah, it's someones idea of art. There are others around that look like men or other things. Not sure if these are stronger or if a good storm might knock them down. Also have to wonder if their customers pick up the tab for the extra expense. Besides, they have to be fixed every time the bucks drop their antlers! LOL!

They must have forgotten to pass that appreciation down to their offspring though.

Quote: Pay anyone enough and he will tell the public what you want them to. That's exactly what we are trying to tell you Belo.

Try to help some people...sheesh. Why do you always need others to show you things? I posted the link for you. If you have issues with it, take it up with the writer. Just goes to show belligerence.

I remember when we were told all we needed to do to stop most air pollution was switch to unleaded gas in our cars.

Nobel Laureate Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992): "Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that 'the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.' Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom."

I think that sums it up best. Philoshop, you don't have a BS in Environmental Engineering do you? That's probably why you can see the farce in this wood stove regulation.

Junk science denial is a good thing

Belo, if what you say is accurate, why is it NOBODY is calling it global warming anymore? Since the scientific record cannot verify any warming trend caused by any unnatural influence, they have now started to call it climate change to avoid the questions. The EPA is currently an agency that is being administered by eco-fascists and Leftists that are determine to hurt businesses as much as possible, because they believe capitalism and the free market are the cause of all of the world's pollution and problems. Since you chose that profession, I'm not at all surprised to hear your opinion supports them.

The French contribution to our Revolutionary War was more finance than fighting. Just an FYI

Hounds77, this article is for you. Coyote pelts will fetch $100 now if they are good ones. http://hunting.scout.com/story/1509064-kill-a-coyote-get-100

Grow, I'm sure all government agencies will be given an exemption, which is usually the case with onerous, oppressive regulations in our country these days.

Curmudgeon wrote: Even though VJP has a problem with me prompting conversation such as this (I'm not sure why), I find this discussion refreshing and informative. It has had over 3000 views - representing hundreds of different individuals. All are reading views supported by science and reason. It also shows that a considerable number of hunters reject the anti-coyote dogma. Well done folks. I don't know where you got the impression I have a problem with the discussion. My concern is posting statements that imply all of the science and reason supports your opinion. Reminds me of the global warming debate. Making such a statement does not make it true. And if you were to look at the subject without a jaundiced eye, you would see at least half of the hunters in NY are on one side of the issue while the other half are on the other side. The same could be said for wildlife biologists. There isn't enough "science" at this point to make a definite conclusion on the subject. If you want to do a little research yourself, put up a post calling for the elimination of coyote hunting altogether and see how much support you get. If they are not a threat to anything in nature, especially when there are "Too Many Yotes" in a given area, why not let them all live?

The Invector, or ""Standard Invector" system" was introduced in 1983. A few years later, the Invector-Plus chokes were introduced to fit the new back-bored shotgun barrels. These two choke systems will not interchange. If you have screw-in chokes in your shotgun barrel, the kind of system you have will be stamped on the barrel near the receiver. You must use the proper choke system for your shotgun.

I don't think you can hunt them though

How about looking into coyote problems in other states in America? Maybe NY just refuses to admit it has a problem so as not to incur the wrath of eco-fascists. BTW, there were none in my area of the Catskills until about 10 years ago.

Only weeks after EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, all predominately Democrat states.

And who pays for this litigation? All-too-often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30 percent ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency funding are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club. In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending EPA in court between 1998 and 2010. This didn’t include money spent by EPA for their legal costs in connection with those rip-offs because EPA doesn’t keep track of their attorney’s time on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has concluded that Sue and Settle rulemaking is responsible for many of EPA’s “most controversial, economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years”.Included are regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries. Such consent decree-based rulemaking enables EPA to argue to Congress: “The court made us do it.”

Actually the rich, at least those of the conservative persuasion, are very much opposed to this oppressive regulation, which was instituted without a vote from any elected representative. This is how an activist administration operates.

So, my observation is correct then.

This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish. “Sue and settle “ practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.

This wood stove law has already passed. It's not a bill or a proposal, it's the law for the future.

A lot of aging hippies from the Woodstock generation are about to find out the EPA is NOT their friend.

Coyote are not cogs in the machine. The machine was running fine without them. They are more like water in the fuel. Eventually it is going to cause irreparable damage.