It reminds me of a story that Cleveland Amory, writer and founder of the Fund for Animals used to tell:
"I was in a debate with a vivisector one day. I asked him his views on the experiment in which a dog's head was transplanted on the body of a cat. He proceeded to explain the reasons and importance of such research to which I then responded: 'I just made up that experiment to prove that you would defend anything.'"
It seems Carol Bannerman and her pals at USDA "Wildlife Services" would also defend anything, including the deliberate experimental poisoning of dogs who were supposed to be "euthanized" in a shelter. It makes Wildlife Services' definition of "euthanasia" a complete and egregious lie.
The fact is, if we cannot trust WS on simple word definition, we cannot trust them on anything -- including the so-called "humane" goose roundups and slaughters conducted in city parks and so-called, "wildlife refuges."
But, if such reports are horrifying in their sheer barbarism and cruelty, they are mystifying in terms of government wastes of money and actually exacerbating a problem, rather than supposedly "solving" it.
Note this passage from the article:
"And the more coyotes that are killed, the more coyotes will reproduce. If a member of the pack is killed, for instance, the alpha female responds by producing more litters.