SLO residents upset over gun violence against coyote

January 18, 2013

coyoteThe death of a coyote near Perfumo Canyon Road in San Luis Obispo has spurred an investigation by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [KCOY]

An unseen person shot the coyote Tuesday morning that was part of a pack on a hillside behind Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. The coyote tumbled down the hill, upsetting the neighbors watching.

A Pacific Wildlife Care volunteer took the wounded coyote to the organization’s hospital in Morro Bay. However, workers at Pacific Wildlife Care euthanized the animal after discovering its wounds could not be healed.

Fish and Wildlife does not list coyotes as a protected species. Hunters can kill them at any time of year, and landowners can shoot them to protect their property.

Still, Fish and Wildlife is conducting a criminal investigation.



  1. The Gimlet Eye says:

    Once they catch the gun that did it, they should put it in jail and impose a heavy fine. That will show it we mean business.

  2. Pelican1 says:

    (CNN) — A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with bird shot accidentally discharged Saturday when the owner opened its case at a gun show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds in Raleigh, injuring a retired sheriff’s deputy and two other people, police said.
    Let’s hear if for ALL the legal, RESPONSIBLE gun owners!

  3. jimmy_me says:

    Got an urge to kill something? Come on over to the back bay in Los Osos. This is where we legally blast birds the so-called “bird sanctuary”. Blam, blam… blam blam blam.

    • choprzrul says:

      The entire Constitution was written to appease many different groups and regions. To pick out one amendment and say that it was used to preserve slavery is disingenuous. The writer of the article can articulate whatever they wish. However, I will place far greater weight on the opinion of justices than some writer at :

      “”Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people’s right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized.” (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))”

      • R.Hodin says:

        I’m sure many parts of the Constitution were compromises which protected specific traditions and freedoms then enjoyed. The reason I posted this particular essay was because we are talking about the 2nd Amendment, and specifically the interpretation (yes, interpretation, as you’ve demonstrated in your quote from the Court, which IS literally an interpretation) that it implies a general right to bear arms by citizens.

        The essay, however, shows evidence that there is no general right, that any right was conditional upon membership in a well-regulated militia formed for the purpose of securing the general order in the case of slaveholder “States.” Not States generally, but slaveholder States.

        I believe that the essay convincingly rebuts the Court’s reasoning, and it does it clearly, because the framers had the opportunity to substitute Country for State, but did no. They meant State. Which means State, as in South Carolina, for example.

        You don’t suppose the Court had other unexpressed considerations in their reasoning, do you?

    • Theo P. Neustic says:

      “” right, why don’t we just check and see what Bill Ayers thinks?

  4. grc says:

    “Gun Violence Against Coyote”? Very spectacular, CCN. Really??? Gun Violence in an article about a shot coyote? Get real.

    • kettle says:

      Don’t let the facts get in the way of your career as a anonymous media troll.

      It was a criminal act of a assh@!e with a gun, that makes it news.

      Your “Get real” is where?

  5. Myself says:

    What frosts my back side is that the shooter only got one out of the pack, this guy needs to practice more.

  6. rogerfreberg says:

    The key part of this article:

    “Hunters can kill them at any time of year, and landowners can shoot them to protect their property.”

    get over it.

    • Jack L says:

      But there are laws how close you can discharge a firearm to a residence and never across a road. This was a botched shoot. That animal should have dropped dead if shot appropriately. And if not, the shooter has the responsibility to finish the job quickly and humanely as possible.

    • hijinks says:

      It’s city land. The city didn’t shoot it. So what’s your point Rog? You can’t hunt in a city park. You can’t legally discharge a gun in the city either. You’re off base. It’s a criminal matter.

    • kettle says:

      Get over it?

      So it’s ok to go shooting guns in the city of SLO owned Irish hills natural reserve?

      Also there is a hiking trail at the top of that ridge, perhaps a family hike?
      What could possibly go wrong.

      Of course our city is half asleep at the wheel anyway.

  7. Pelican1 says:

    Oh, what a boring country this would be if we couldn’t shoot and kill something!

  8. Pelican1 says:

    No doubt this story will will generate more debate than the gun violence American citizens are subjected to each and every day.. A strange country indeed.

    • kayaknut says:

      You mean the violence that the majority of is committed by guns illegally obtained, and not those of citizens who own and use their guns legally?

      • Pelican1 says:

        I’m talking about gun violence such as:
        Accidental discharge 851
        Suicide 19,766
        Homicide 11,101
        Undetermined Intent 222

        • Pelican1 says:

          These of course are just the deaths, and doesn’t include the thousands of injuries related to gun use.

          • kayaknut says:

            but still deaths from guns obtained illegally, and of course that will all stop when more gun types and ammo are outlawed?????????

          • doggin says:

            Good thing the media and gov like to jump on a band wagon and stir up shit about the latest rage, that being guns used by unregistered, untrained mental cases who illegally obtained them in almost every case.
            Here below are the CDC statistics on drunks, cars and deaths. BTW, these are trained and licensed operators of machines that weigh 3-5 thousand lbs on the average.
            Curious why we don’t see Obama and Biden surround themselves with the families and maimed victims of these murdering drunks, then tell us how their gonna save the world by outlawing booze and cars?.

            Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.2

            • r0y says:

              Come on, it’s not like they’re using children to push political agendas, right? :/

        • tomsquawk says:

          where does hunting with Dick Cheney fit in?

        • Jack L says:

          65,000,000 firearms owners did not shoot anyone today.

        • OnTheOtherHand says:

          The figures you provide are roughly equivalent to those I have seen elsewhere for total VIOLENT deaths, so I will accept them as essentially accurate. (With the high suicide rate, I’m guessing they are for 2010.) But they may not prove what you think they do.

          Suicides are made easier by guns, but most people can and will find other options if guns aren’t available. The only figure that I have seen is for an 11% drop in juvenile suicides in a state (Florida?) after it enacted strict laws about locking up guns in homes with children. I can’t speak for the accuracy of the study and question how applicable it would be across all age groups and in other locales. I personally think that suicide should be legal for mentally competent adults and would reduce gun use for that greatly if it was — but that would be a subject for another day/time.

          I would guess that juvenile deaths due to accidental discharges would be similarly reduced. That would not help with adults because “you can’t cure stupid”– sober or drunk although ignorance-related fatalities might be reduced through earlier and better education.

          Of the homicides, roughly 75% of them are done by people with criminal records and over 60% are done with handguns. Exactly how are increased gun regulations — particularly for rifles (“assault”, “military-style” or any others) which are involved in maybe 6% of that total — going to stop people who should not be able to get one legally at present from owning and using them? Rifles are used to murder about as often as asphyxiation and strangulation.

          IF SUCCESSFUL, a total ban and seizure of handguns would reduce deaths from guns significantly. However, the chances of success would be bordering zero because, not only are criminals unlikely to cooperate, but many law-abiding citizens would reluctantly change that status rather than give up their guns. I have seen statistics that say ~40% of the US population owns guns and that they average is over 2 guns per gun owner. And this doesn’t count the guns and owners the government is not able to track.

          There is no chance that gun seizure could work (without inciting much worse violent resistance) in a country that won its freedom with armed citizens and in which gun ownership is integral to the culture. Even a realistic attempt to reduce gun deaths (exaggerated in proportion by the media incidentally) will require a recognition that gun owners have legitimate concerns and won’t be bullied into submission by some half-baked, emotionally-driven, feel-good regulations.

        • choprzrul says:

          Just for clarity, did guns do all of this by themselves, or was there humans involved in your statistics?

    • grc says:

      only if you live in a bubble

Comments are closed.