The Rich vs. the Coyotes
May 1997
I’ve thrown away the first draft of this column. The First Amendment only bends so far, as do the language guidelines of this paper. Now, as I try to put into words what’s going on in Villa Park, I find myself resorting to those blunt, brusque, borderline-illegal uses of the English language.
How can the city spend taxpayer money to kill a wild animal because some affluent people term wilderness a "nuisance?" How can councilmembers run like scared children when the word "coyote" is used? I fail to see the icy fear the council says is running through the city, nor do I see frantic parents, screaming in the streets for an end to the madness. The only ones complaining so far are those who feel their paychecks designate them as rule makers of the city.
Money can buy a nice house in the hills, and now it can obviously buy the rich a chance to play God.
If Villa Parkians are angry that coyotes are on their property, call up the neighboring cities and gripe about certain infrastructure construction (i.e. the Eastern Transportation Corridor) that destroys the natural wildlife habitat and drives the coyotes into greener pastures.
Trapping these coyotes in inhumane leg-hold traps is like sticking a Band-Aid on a severed artery. Kill off some coyotes and more will move in from Orange and Tustin. The ones left in Villa Park will produce bigger litters to compensate to fill the void. People will have a false sense of security and begin leaving their small pets, food and water outside. But wait–have they really stopped doing that in the first place? I really don’t think the coyotes give a squat about any "Do Not Trespass" signs or how much these socialites feel their mortgages allow them to let Fluffy the Persian cat sunbathe on the back porch.
Along the lines of leg-hold traps, what’s to say a child or even Fluffy won’t get caught in them? You know it must hurt like hell; the hinges need to be strong enough to hold a struggling wild animal for hours as it fights to free itself. A small cat won’t fare well in that situation, nor will a toddler. I wonder how the city will prepare the legal wording to avoid that pitfall.
It looks like the council decided all 7,000 residents want their taxes to go towards this expenditure. Gee, if we have $6,500 lying around in some slush fund, why didn’t we use it to keep the historic library open? I guess an ineffective plan at destroying the ecosystem is more worthwhile than literacy.