Wily coyotes are at home in N.J. [Send school into lockdown]

"The incident in Marquette is proof that attacks happen. "

An attack that never happened is proof that attacks happen?

"That the rest of the nation hasn't heard about it suggests such attacks are minimized.

Or perhaps it's evidence that there's nothing to hear about.

"The lack of reported attacks is not proof that such attacks are rare."

You posit that attacks happen -- and indeed are fairly common -- and then point to the lack of evidence (or reporting) as proof?

"The trend of residential development into more rural areas is significant enough to argue against minimizing the potential danger."

Now it's "potential" danger? And is this somehow a new trend? Are coyotes somehow more of a threat than other predators whose habitats have been encroached upon over the past umpteen years?

Look, I'm sure people have been attacked by coyotes, but having lived around these creatures, I can tell you that they're generally no more dangerous than your neighbor's dog. But if you want to exterminate them, be my guest. I've been awakened by them "singing" along with my neighbor's two labs on many occasions (the concert usually ending with a shotgun blast -- my neighbor hated coyotes as well, it appears). But this article, in my opinion, is nothing but a bit of fear-mongering by city-folk who get all excited when they see a raccoon.

Your post reminds me of the debate during the anthrax attacks. It was argued that previous anthrax attacks hadn't taken place; this was the argument even though proving such attacks is difficult given the nature and manner of anthrax.

My point is: don't minimize any animal attack. And I argued that that is what happened in the Marquette incident--it was minimized and dismissed. Earlier this year there was an incident in Canada where an individual was attacked and killed by wolves. Remember that one? That was another case where blame was placed on the human element.

Lack of reports of animal attacks on humans is not proof that such attacks do not happen. Like the anthrax analogy, simply arguing that one doesn't know about these attacks does not relegate them to the dustbin of folktale.

The boy in Marquette and his parents would probably call you an idiot for saying what happened to him and their son was not an attack. It is an attack when several coyotes stalk a human, and for one of them to get close enough that he had to whack one on the head with the helmet he was carrying should be cause for concern, not an opportunity for Clintonian double-speak.

I've written about three incidents. Had you heard about any of them. How about another post of mine within the last year: Four wolves were disturbingly close to a berry picker in our area last year. They didn't run away from her, as expected, and in that incident, they didn't attack.

Why are you minimizing real and potential dangers to humans?

"It was argued that previous anthrax attacks hadn't taken place; this was the argument even though proving such attacks is difficult given the nature and manner of anthrax."

I never argued that coyote attacks haven't taken place. I argued against your lack of evidence to back up the assertion that they're common and/or that the threat is significant.

"My point is: don't minimize any animal attack."

I never minimized any animal attack, and I defy you to point to any post where I have.

"Earlier this year there was an incident in Canada where an individual was attacked and killed by wolves..."

And the point?

"Lack of reports of animal attacks on humans is not proof that such attacks do not happen. "

I never said it was, and I've offered no "proof" of anything. You made the assertion that coyotes pose an imminent threat, so the burden of proof is on you to back that claim. Absent evidence (statistics), I am correct in questioning that assertion.

"The boy in Marquette and his parents would probably call you an idiot for saying what happened to him and their son was not an attack..." (yada, yada, yada)

I haven't a clue what happened in Marquette, except what's been reported third-hand from a "teenage boy" who may or may not have been "stalked". I will say this, though... predators who are hunting in a pack don't generally turn-tail and run when one of them gets rebuffed. So neither of us really knows what happened in that "incident".

"...not an opportunity for Clintonian double-speak."

Nice try... I don't agree with you, so I'm "Clintonian". Grow up.

"I've written about three incidents. Had you heard about any of them. How about another post of mine within the last year: Four wolves were disturbingly close to a berry picker in our area last year. They didn't run away from her, as expected, and in that incident, they didn't attack. "

Coyotes aren't wolves, bears, mountain lions or crocodiles. They're coyotes; a small, generally shy predator that will hunt small animals, eat carrion and sometimes livestock LONG before they make an attempt at a fully-grown human being. Has it ever happened? I'm sure it has. Are coyotes such a threat as you make them out to be? Hardly.

"Why are you minimizing real and potential dangers to humans?"

Why don't you show me evidence that there's a significant threat to humans? Why do you expect me to accept your assertions without evidence (aside from a single anecdote in which no attack actually takes place)?

Here's a little reality for ya...

Excerpt:

Here are some overall statistics:

Officials with the California Department of Fish and Game estimate that roughly one person gets bitten by a coyote per year in California. The last human to be killed by a coyote was a child in the Los Angeles area around 1980. (SDUT 1/3/95, B1; 5/16/00, B3)

For comparison, over 300 people have been killed by domestic dogs in the U.S. between 1979 and the late 1990s. (Humane Society of the U.S., reported in Tracking and the Art of Seeing, Paul Rezendes, second edition, 1999, p. 194)

From 1993 to 1997 there were seven coyote attacks on humans in Arizona, with over half in 1997. (SDUT 12/17/97, A3)

"The best estimates assert that, in recorded history, there have been 20 to 30 coyote attacks on humans that resulted in injuries." (Tracking and the Art of Seeing, Paul Rezendes, second edition, 1999, p. 194)

Paul's summary is much lower than the total number derived from the previous estimates; perhaps the definition of injuries is different for his estimate. At one person per year in California, one would estimate ~10 attacks per year in the U.S., giving 500 attacks in the last 50 years alone.

Link to site

Not quite the scourge you make them out to be, eh?

"Much ado," you began in #78. Meaning? Much ado about nothing? Minimizing a danger that isn't going to cease being a danger simply because someone wills it to be. And you emphasize your much-ado-about-nothing thinking with you personal history on the matter: " no one (that I've talked with) has ever heard of a human being being attacked. Chickens and cats, yes, but not people."

Perhaps one reason no one that you talked with has ever heard about attacks is the tendency of the media to downplay attacks, to minimize attacks, or to deny that they were attacks. The lack of knowledge and/or the lack of reports on coyote attacks do not mean they don't exist. You #82 is an example with your denial that it was an attack, "And you'll notice that the boy wasn't attacked," and minimizing of that attack, "the coyote was easily scared off."

I argue the predator attacks are minimized, denied, or the news of these attacks are not widely reported. You continued to minimize my argument with your #101: "Now it's "potential" danger? And is this somehow a new trend? Are coyotes somehow more of a threat than other predators whose habitats have been encroached upon over the past umpteen years?"

It should be obvious from the wording of your #101 that you are among that group that believes man "encroaches" upon habitat. So I understand why you would try to minimize and deny a coyote attack that I reported.

You said in #104, "I never argued that coyote attacks haven't taken place." But you implied that the threat of attack, the "potential" of attack is minimal, that it is "much ado." You made the point that "no one you talked with" heard of an attack. You continued by saying, "I argued against your lack of evidence to back up the assertion that they're common and/or that the threat is significant."

And as I said, a lack of evidence does not prove attacks haven't happened. Your last post supplied evidence of attacks. I've never said attacks were "common".

You wrote, "I never minimized any animal attack, and I defy you to point to any post where I have." I did this, several times, and here as well--the coyote attack on the Marquette boy. And I repeat--simply because you or people you talk with haven't heard about attacks does not mean attacks haven't happened. And I used examples of several wild animal attacks, one leading to the death of a Canadian by wolves. You answer with, "And the point?" I thought the point was clear. Did you hear about it? I asked.

"You made the assertion that coyotes pose an imminent threat, so the burden of proof is on you to back that claim." Where do you get "imminent threat" from my posts? I'd repeat the incident with the boy in Marquette, but you have already written that wasn't an attack and you are prone to deny it. You say you have no idea what happened to the boy, yet you deny it was an attack.

My initial post on the matter concerning the attack by the coyotes on the Marquette boy was to say "it happens", nothing more, nothing less. Given the propensity of some to minimize the danger of any kind of wild animal attack, and given that those minimizing incidents like that, an alternative to that, questioned by you and by how you questioned it is evidence enough that further debate on the matter is pointless. I think we've covered the relevant points. One last point:

"Why don't you show me evidence that there's a significant threat to humans?" Never said "significant". I said "don't minimize the potential danger" and I offered an example that you dismissed. Thanks. I'll do my best to grow up. :)

I just moved from West Milford, which is the northernmost part of Passaic County, New Jersey. There were no coyotes when I moved there in 1996. There were wild dogs, released into the woods by people who decided they couldn't care for them. The wild dogs formed packs and ran down deer for food. The coyotes made themselves known in 1999. I used to listen to them as they killed rabbits in a blackberry patch behind my house. The screaming reported to the police was probably a rabbit they were killing. You won't believe the noise they make until you hear it.

In 2004, small dogs and cats were disappearing with such frequency that it was no longer news. A friend lost two cats and a German Shepherd to them. We're 99% certain it was coyotes because bears are afraid of dogs and can't be bothered with something as small and fast as a cat.

Children are another matter. There are still enough small clusters of wood in New Jersey, even the McMansion areas, for a young child on his own to encounter a pack of these animals. That encounter could have an unpleasant outcome.

I also don't see why my old neighbors can't let puppy and kitty put of the house.

It's October 2007

Apparently, there have been local sightings in Morristown / Morris Plains URBAN New Jersey, for a while.. without incident... until this past month! ..although the "authorities" - Police - Animal Wardens etc etc ... have not yet gottent around to mentioning it and the possible dangers to the people living in those neighborhoods.

My cat went missing the week after labor day.. I then heard of 4 others in w/in the last 2 weeks.. During my frantic search for what I thought was a "lost" pet.. I realized what has happened - immediately posting my findings on Morristown.com - our local free community interactive all county site.
It seems that this year's litter has tipped the scales, having been born here... and they are FEASTING on our pets, fox, Geese etc etc.. and the public has NO CLUE until the loss hits home.

Now I'm a nature girl, all my life and believe that this is "their planet too".. however.. when they run out of easy prey - what's next?.. Our children?

What can we humanely do to restore a livable balance? One more litter season and we are BOTH in "deep trouble!"

Thanks for this platform.
Sincerely,
Shelleybrooke
Editor, Morristown.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.