October 14, 2004

ValleyViewpoints

Vector Control needs to use methods that don’t result in killing wildlife

Editor,
The article in the Oct. 7 issue of the Almaden Times Weekly regarding coyotes in the Villas development in Almaden Valley made no mention of the steps the residents need to take to encourage the coyotes to leave the area. They were told that they need to get rid of all wildlife feeders, keep their cats indoors, and remove any other food sources that are attracting the coyotes.

Inspections have shown that these precautions have not been taken. If they had, the problem would be over by now.

The residents complain that they have been threatened by the coyotes for the last 18 months. Since Vector Control killed coyotes two years ago, their method only lasted six months. Are we going to have to kill them every six months?

There are more people harmed by stray dogs than by wildlife. Vector Control needs to stop using fear to protect their outdated methodology. They need to come into the 21st century and learn to use methods that don’t always result in killing wildlife. Since I was involved in preparing the ordinance to ban leghold traps, I can say that it was not “short sighted” as stated by Jon Cicirelli. It states exactly what was meant. No leghold traps were to be used whether they were padded or not. The intent was to get agencies to start looking into other methods of keeping wildlife and humans in harmony.

Additionally, the writer should be advised that the Audubon Society, the Little Blue Society and the government advisory panels are certainly not considered animal rights by any definition.

Judy Jones
Minnesota Avenue

Editorial response: After nearly four years of writing articles on this topic and conducting extensive research on coyote and wildlife interactions, numerous interviews with city, county, and state animal control officials, and advice from experts on preventative measures we have run several in-depth articles on this issue. Some of these article focused exclusively on providing our readers with measures that would assist them in creating unfavorable coyote environments.

Contrary to your claims, residents at the Villas of Almaden—at the recommendation of and in compliance with city requests—started implementing long-term suggestions prior to the Oct. 5 City Council meeting, including education, pet care, proper trash storage, and no wildlife feeding. However, it should be noted that this property has been designated an Oak Woodland Habitat and is subject to restrictions under Planned Permit PD79-016-03, which protects and encourages native forging, roosting, and nesting—while forbidding any suggested wildlife-resistant landscape changes without city approval.

You do not seem concerned with the fact that the city has admittedly violated its own ordinance in the past, but refuses to do so now. Perhaps they should be held accountable for violating the very law you say you helped them create.

Additionally, our documents and recorded interviews prove that promises made by the city in this case were not kept and ultimately prompted City Council attention. After the Oct. 5 meeting, it became apparent that a keener eye should be directed at a less than perfect showing of the democratic process—which was the focus of the article.

Let the Almaden Times hear from you. In order to be considered, letters must be signed by the author or come with the full name, address, and a phone number (which will not be printed).
Send letters to newsroom@timesmediainc.com, or via mail to:

The Almaden Times Weekly,
1310 Tully Road, Ste. 107,
San Jose, CA 95122