January 6, 2006, - 8:16 am

Coyote Ugly: Take That, PETA . . . & Laura Ingraham

By Debbie Schlussel
PETA (or as we call it, PUTA–People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals & humans) just got put in their place by Stan Gehrt. Same for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Environmental Liberation Front (ELF)–both designated terrorist groups.
Gehrt–an Ohio State University wildlife extension specialist, biologist, and professor–just completed a six-year study showing that not only do coyotes adapt to urban settings (the study was in Chicago), but they also live longer than their rural counterpart. A coyote living in urban Chicago has a 60-percent chance of surviving for one year, while a rural coyote has a 30 percent chance of living for another year.
Hmmmm . . . doesn’t exactly jibe with the shrieking claims of PUTA and ALF that we humans and our “urban sprawl” are hurting the animals.

stangehrtcoyote.jpglauraingrahamanimals.jpg

Prof. Stan Gehrt Proves Animal Rights Activist Laura Ingraham Wrong

Ditto for “conservative” Laura Ingraham. That’s right. On September 6, 2001, Ingraham wrote an absurd op-ed in USA Today, “Scariest Animal Wears Pants,” which could have been written by the most militant PUTA, ALF, or ELF activist. She excoriated humans for building shopping malls, golf courses, and ski slopes–saying it drives animals out, and it’s our fault when they attack. Because I’m sure she’s never shopped, golfed, or gone skiing.
The complete scoop on the coyotes-in-the-Windy-City study is here. A summary of the findings of research, as reported by UPI:

Coyotes are thriving in some of the largest U.S. cities, despite scientists’ belief that these mammals intently avoid urban human populations.
Stanley Gehrt, an assistant professor of environmental and natural resources at Ohio State University, has been studying coyote behavior in Chicago for six years.
Gehrt and his colleagues have found that urban coyote populations are much larger than expected; that they live longer than their rural cousins in these environments; and that they are more active at nighttime than coyotes living in rural areas.
Coyotes also do some good, helping control rapidly growing populations of Canada geese throughout North America.
“We couldn’t find an area in Chicago where there weren’t coyotes,” Gehrt said. “They’ve learned to exploit all parts of their landscape.”
Since the beginning of the study, the researchers have caught and tagged more than 200 coyotes. They estimate that there may be somewhere between several hundred and 2,000 coyotes in Chicago.
Some of the animals live in city parks, while others live among apartment and commercial buildings and in industrial parks.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses

My neighborhood has plenty of coyotes. Among other things, they eat our cats.
I’m really disappointed in Laura Ingraham for writing that article. Her position is elitist. I guess because she has her malls, neighborhood and ski resorts, that’s enough. The rest of us be damned if we want to live, shop and ski in nice places.
I tell you, if I find a coyote going after one of my pets or one of the neighborhood children, I will shoot it without a single regret. I’ll be the “scariest animal” in a dress.

Sue Bob on January 6, 2006 at 9:18 am

Are you really serious? Your trying to justify humans treatment of the environment by presenting a single study that illustrates coyotes survive better off human’s garbage than in forests? I don’t like laura ingraham but at least she isn’t so blinded that see can admit humans are the most destructive species on the planet.

nicholasedward on January 6, 2006 at 5:19 pm

**but at least she isn’t so blinded that she can admit**

nicholasedward on January 6, 2006 at 5:21 pm

Hey nicholas,
Coyotes are scavengers. For them, eating from garbage cans is like eating at a fancy restaurant is for us. Where I live, they have access to little bunnies, jackrabbits, squirrels and people’s cats. Eating from the garbage can is easier for them than having to stalk and run down prey.
Our neighborhood was here before they came. They are encroaching on us.

Sue Bob on January 6, 2006 at 6:37 pm

Sue Bob,
We were not here before coyotes, they are not encroaching on us. Their numbers are larger, yes, but we weren’t here before any native animals. The coyote is a scavenger but I still don’t think it was destined to eat our garbage. My biggest problem with her article was her claim that humans aren’t driving out animals, statements like these.
“Hmmmm . . . doesn’t exactly jibe with the shrieking claims of PUTA and ALF that we humans and our “urban sprawl” are hurting the animals.”
The Coyote, like the raccoon, is an Anomaly in that its numbers have only increased since human encroachment began. We’ve driven many animals to extinction and countless others to near extinction. There are an infinite amount of stories that do “jibe” with the concept that urban sprawl is hurting animals.

nicholasedward on January 6, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Nicholas,
I don’t know if coyote’s preceded us on earth. I think that according to the Bible they did. But, I moved into my neighborhood twelve years ago, and they certainly weren’t right here then. They moved in later. I don’t blame them. We have some really high quality garbage in my neighborhood because a lot of the people shop at Whole Foods.
I like to hear them sing at night. That said, I will shoot any coyote that I see come in my yard.

Sue Bob on January 6, 2006 at 11:10 pm

Sue,
Coyotes were here before white settlers arrived a little over 400 years ago. Although natives were here, they weren’t responsible for urban sprawl. Like you, I’m not entirely sure what the bible’s stance on it is. According to the fossil record, people crossed the landbridge to the americas approximately 30,000 years ago, and the coyotes were probably here even then. Since you mention the bible, you probably don’t accept the fossil record, but I thought I’d throw it in there for balance. Well this discussion has come to a close so good luck getting them coyotes, there pretty tricky from what i hear.

nicholasedward on January 7, 2006 at 1:29 pm

I think Debbie is a very smart lady, and I enjoy listening to her in her occasional visits to Michael Reagan’s talk show, but didn’t Mike’s dad, Ronald Reagan, have an eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow republican”? (By the way, Reagan said nothing of RINOs, but that’s another story.)
Anyway, after finding and reading Laura Ingraham’s article in question, what I got from it was that, while Miss Ingraham surely isn’t one of the chain-yourself-to-tree, or lie-in-front-of-a-bulldozer bunch, she did come across as somewhat anti-progress (keeping in mind that the article is four years old). In her defense, however, unlike the PUTA folks, at least I didn’t see her rooting for the sharks, but rather simply implying that it shouldn’t be any surprise when nature takes its course. What’s that old saying… sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. I say, respect nature, and carry a big gun.

IN_FarmBoy on January 7, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Laura Ingraham is just a loud-mouth whore whose short haircut stands for feminism. She, like Ann Coulter should service their men and cook their dinner. The only conservative woman I enjoy hearing is Deb. She’s knowledgeable, more so than the other two cackling hyenas Deb may like Ann, but when either speak, I hear: Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh and I want to shoot doqwn a bottle of whiskey

KOAJaps on January 8, 2006 at 5:29 pm

KOAJaps,
That was waaay beyond the pale and totally unnecessary. You don’t know the first thing about Laura Ingraham to be calling her a “whore.”
And the short hair is because she’s undergoing chemo.
Real classy comments…

Steve on January 9, 2006 at 1:13 am

King Of All Japs(KOAJaps);as you like to call yourself.People are catching on to your….

danny on January 9, 2006 at 2:02 pm

Steve:
In fairness to KOAJaps, Laura has ALWAYS had short hair. But we don’t care about her hair-style. We care that she sounds like a raving animal rights lunatic, while claiming to be a conservative. You can’t be both.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on January 11, 2006 at 11:27 pm

Debbie:
Why you would want to be fair to a dingbat like KOAJerks is beyond me, but it’s your site, so okay.
I’ve listened to Laura a lot on the radio, but admittedly haven’t heard much about her animal rights position, other than that semi-disturbing four-year-old article, so I’ll digress on that. You are right that you can’t be both an animal rights looney and conservative. I’m very conservative, but I love animals… I eat them every day. I might shoot and kill a big buck from a tree stand, but I would never think of running one down on a snowmobile, as she mentioned. That was my point in my earlier post. That, and when we, shall we say, ‘blend in’ with animals, it does help to try to understand their behavior, although when it comes down to them-or-us… no question.

IN_FarmBoy on January 12, 2006 at 12:25 pm

I’ve met Laura and can unequivocably state to no
ones’ surprise that she too has her own agenda.
When not blowing her own horn or amusing herself
with the actions and remarks of those not blessed
with her intelligence and good fortune, you quickly realize that Laura is not as smart as
she tells herself nor as pretty as she sees
herself. Drop me a few more names, tell me how
important you are, belittle a few more cretins
for self-elevation, and don’t fall off the
Bush gravy chain !!! What…No Starbucks !!!
Thats’ the Laura I met.

CFL Jim on January 12, 2006 at 7:46 pm

hello all

kelly on July 10, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field