It's an awful job, and no one has to do it: The LA Times ran a weird story two days ago about a man, Jimmie Rizzo, who kills coyotes for a living (pun intended). The story has inspired more postings more quickly on the neighborhood list than any I have seen on any subject. The community is upset because in the story they read an LA Times endorsement of Rizzo's activities. And perhaps they're right -- the tone of the story is hard to pin down: the language and presentation are that of a sunny feature profile, a day in the life of a guy whose grandma taught him to kill muskrats; he graduated to a life of driving around with guns, chains and sodium pentothal -- all in protection of lapdogs (whose owners should be protecting their pets by other means). The reporter, Joe Mozingo, tags along with Rizzo -- who often acts as an agent for the county -- as he goes about his killing, and the horror and ugliness of what he reports is at odds with the featurey delivery of the story.
It's off-putting. But I'm glad the story was published because I wasn't aware -- hadn't given it any thought -- that my taxes were being used to pay for such an awful and unnecessary "service." Nor had I known that the Huntington Library and Gardens pays Rizzo to kill coyotes. Something out of balance in that detail, or is there? If I hadn't already let our family membership lapse two years ago, I'd be canceling it now. Regardless, coyote haters will enjoy the Times story. People who support a sane approach to co-existence with urban/suburban wildlife can do better. Sometimes it's good to be upset.
In any case, Freud famously wrote that the purpose of civilization is to protect humans from nature. But I don't think Freud was thinking in green terms or in terms of environmental calamity. And he certainly hadn't considered the odd urban-forested neighborhoods/cities of Echo Park, Silver Lake, Pasadena, etc. that are so close to large, wild parks and mountains.
As one contributor to the neighorhood list put it: "Don't like coyotes, move downtown."
