>I've been trying to find the URLs for a current controversy here in
>Colorado, but no luck so far. Basically the issue started with the State
>Wildlife Commission approving a 9 year study of coyote control as a factor
>in deer declines. All that aside there is another topic that came up that
>interests me.


Here's some background to the Colorado Wildlife Commission issue that may
be helpful for the sake of context.  I take it that the "deer" in this case
are mule deer? perhaps Steve B. could verify.
jt


COLORADO RULES OUT AERIAL SHOOTING OF COYOTES

from http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2001/2001L-01-15-09.html

DENVER, Colorado, January 15, 2001 (ENS) - Colorado wildlife officials may
decide to kill pairs of breeding coyotes to protect deer, but no aerial
gunning will be allowed.

The Colorado Wildlife Commission directed state Division of Wildlife land
managers to continue refining a long term study designed to determine
whether the killing of breeding pairs of coyotes before deer have their
fawns could increase the state's deer herd. The Commission wants to review
initial findings after one year. The Division will test different methods
of removing coyotes this spring. More funding will be sought from the state
Legislature so full implementation of the study can begin in 2002.

The commission directed that the division not use aerial gunning as one of
the tools for killing coyotes. Instead, the division will determine if
shooting from the ground will be an effective way to remove the breeding
pairs of coyotes. The use of most poisons to kill predators has been
prohibited for nearly 30 years and the use of any poison, snare or trap to
kill coyotes for wildlife management purposes was prohibited by the passage
of an anti-trapping amendment in 1996.

The study, which could extend over 10 years, would occur in the Glade Park
area southwest of Grand Junction, and in the Fruitland Mesa area north of
the Black Canyon in the Gunnison National Park.

The current plan calls for the killing of breeding pairs of coyotes in one
unit while taking no special actions in the second. After four years, the
coyote control would end for two years, then begin again with the units
reversed. Deer would be monitored to determine whether the ratio of fawns
to does changes.

 This type of study was recommended by the Predator Advisory Management
Committee, a seven member panel representing various interest groups
created by the passage of a new law last year. The legislation requires
that the division implement predator management plans by March 1, 2001.

Wildlife manager Jim Lipscomb told the commission that three other mule
deer studies are underway. One study focuses on deer nutrition, the second
on fawn mortality and the third on changes in habitat composition over the
last 40 years.

***



>
>I've always been a skeptical about the Animal Rights movement claim to ties
>to the Civil Rights movement. I've found the claim more than a bit
>offensive, but, there you go.
>
>In this case the current local Animal Rights group, Rocky Mountain Animal
>Defense,  objected to the study and had attended the Commission meetings to
>give testimony against it. They did not prevail, primarily for political
>reasons, and following the meeting one of the groups members made a comment
>about the decision called for a "lynch mob." Trouble is the chairman of the
>Wildlife Commission, Bernard Black, is an African-American and his wife
>heard the comments. One of the RMAD members who was there admitted to making
>the comment, but says she wasn't being racist. She has, however, resigned
>her position with RMAD. I think she shows incredible naiveté to think an
>African-American wouldn't interpret a remark about lynching as racist.
>
>I guess where this is taking me is an examination of the claim that animal
>rights is an extension of the abolitionist movement of the 19th century. I
>find the claim lacking in merit. I think that the concerns of the
>abolitionists movement and the concerns of the animal rights movement to be
>very different in context and in content.
>
>As to the animal rights movement being environmental; I suppose in this case
>it is more clearly environmental (embarrassingly so) than abolitionist. It
>seems a shame that those interested in animal rights cannot seem to make
>their case without recourse to claims of either environmentalism or
>abolitionist ties. Perhaps if animal rights were to more clearly make their
>ethical claims on their own, there would be less antipathy toward them.
>
>Steven
>