I’m responding to V. Paul Reynolds’ column, “Outdoors in Maine: Should anti-hunting activists be included in shaping wildlife management strategies?” (Aug. 12).
Yes. And the very use of the term “anti” by anybody is but one reason why all voices should be heard when it comes to the responsible management/discussions, regarding our coyotes.
The coyote’s value is not up for debate.
Noteworthy: When deer are found in ecosystems where they naturally belong and are meant to thrive, coyote’s presence helps the herd to remain in good health and resilient. Coyotes kill deer. Bobcats kill deer. Bears kill deer. All done within the highly important function of the predator/prey natural balance.
As a member on this coyote management sub-committee 2020-2030, I felt the whole process left much to be desired in more than one venue. It was definitely an eye-opening experience. I believe any Maine citizen who cares about our coyote’s wildlife management policies should be made aware of these meetings (process) and how things unfolded.
There were five biologists on this sub-committee, not four. And out of those five, every single one voted in strong favor of a closed season for our coyotes (reflected in L.D. 814) … except Gerry Lavigne, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine affiliate. He participates in and strongly advocates for the killing of Maine’s coyotes, non-stop, year-round. This includes “denning,” which is the killing of coyote pups and/or the killing the parent coyotes.
May I suggest a reconsideration of the “fox guarding the hen house” analogy Mr. Reynolds’ article referenced in relation to “the antis?”
There is more to special interest group bias than meets the eye here. Civil discussions, without labeling, would be refreshing.
Claire Perry, Owl’s Head
Send questions/comments to the editors.
