Animal advocacy groups exist with a clear agenda—to give a voice to the voiceless. While this may sound noble, their efforts often extend beyond simply protecting animals. Many of these organizations actively work to prevent people from directly participating in wildlife management, targeting activities like hunting, trapping, and other legal management practices. This stance ignores the fact that conservation, at its core, requires human involvement—often from those who dedicate their time, money, and expertise to managing wildlife populations responsibly.
These advocacy groups claim to help wildlife, but their limited and emotionally driven perspective often does more harm than good. Instead of recognizing conservation as a science-based discipline that includes population management, habitat preservation, and ecological balance, they promote a narrow, hands-off approach that disregards natural processes. For example, they oppose the removal of overpopulated predators, even when those populations negatively impact prey species, agricultural interests, or public safety.
True conservation acknowledges that wildlife does not exist in a vacuum—species interact within ecosystems shaped by natural and human influences. Effective management considers the long-term health of entire landscapes, not just individual animals. This website is dedicated to exposing the gaps in advocacy-driven conservation, highlighting the scientific realities of wildlife management, and providing a fact-based perspective on organizations like Project Coyote and their role in shaping public policy.
It’s time to ask: Are these groups really helping wildlife, or are they harming it under the guise of protection?
Evidence seems to indicate the protectionist policies of Project Coyote have long term negative effects on wildlife and people.
Founded by Camilla Fox in 2008, Project Coyote is an animal advocacy organization that promotes coexistence with coyotes and other predators, primarily through non-lethal management approaches. Founded in 2008, the group is known for opposing traditional wildlife management practices such as hunting and lethal control, advocating instead for policies that emphasize deterrents, habitat modifications, and public education. While Project Coyote presents itself as a science-based conservation group, its approach often prioritizes ideology over ecological reality, pushing for legislative changes that restrict lethal control even when it may be necessary for population management, ecosystem balance, or human-wildlife conflict mitigation.
Project Coyote actively lobbies against predator hunting contests, fur trapping, and other legal wildlife management tools, arguing that these practices are inhumane and unnecessary. However, critics point out that the organization’s stance disregards the role of predator-prey dynamics, carrying capacity, and the ecological consequences of unchecked predator populations. Rather than acknowledging that management—including lethal control—is sometimes a necessary part of conservation, Project Coyote promotes a hands-off philosophy that can undermine responsible wildlife stewardship.
Despite its claims, Project Coyote is not an independent nonprofit organization. If you search for it in the California Secretary of State’s business registry or the IRS list of Tax-Exempt Organizations, you won’t find it listed as a separate entity. Instead, Project Coyote operates as a project under the Earth Island Institute, a large environmental organization that provides fiscal sponsorship to various activist groups.
What is Fiscal Sponsorship?
A fiscal sponsor is an established nonprofit that allows smaller, unregistered groups to operate under its legal and tax-exempt status. This arrangement lets projects like Project Coyote receive tax-deductible donations, apply for grants, and avoid the administrative burden of maintaining their own nonprofit status. While fiscal sponsorship is a legitimate financial arrangement, it can also be used to obscure financial transparency, making it difficult to track how money is raised and spent.
The Lack of Financial Transparency
Project Coyote’s affiliation with Earth Island Institute means its financial records are not publicly available as an independent entity. In fact, Earth Island Institute has previously stated that it does not disclose the financial records of its projects, arguing that doing so could harm donor expectations. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about how Project Coyote allocates its funding, especially given its active lobbying efforts and media campaigns.
While Project Coyote presents itself as a grassroots conservation nonprofit, the reality is that it functions under the umbrella of a larger activist organization that controls its finances and shields it from public scrutiny. This structure makes it difficult to assess whether its funding supports genuine conservation efforts or simply fuels ideological advocacy against traditional wildlife management practices.
Camilla Fox has long promoted anti-hunting and animal rights viewpoints, which are evident in her public statements and writings. In a letter allegedly published in North American Hunter magazine titled "The Case Against Sport Hunting", Fox criticizes hunting without citing supporting data or sources.
Fox's claims misrepresent conservation, rely on selective statistics, and substitutes evidence with emotion. She ignores the proven role of regulated hunting in wildlife management, habitat conservation, and population control. While highlighting declining hunter participation, she omits the billions in conservation funding generated by hunters through programs like the Pittman-Robertson Act. Her portrayal of hunting as unethical leans on extreme examples—canned hunts and baiting—rather than addressing fair chase and sustainable management. Ultimately, her arguments reflect ideology, not a balanced assessment of hunting’s role in conservation.
Camilla Fox's' role as an expert witness has been called into question in legal proceedings. In the case of Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin (No. CV-08-267-B-W), the Court found it difficult to consider Fox’s testimony as objective, citing concerns that her strong personal beliefs influenced her statements. The Court noted that while Fox is intelligent and dedicated, her testimony often shifted into advocacy rather than expertise. She was repeatedly admonished to answer questions directly instead of using the witness stand to argue her position, with the judge likening her testimony to a "closing argument" rather than an expert opinion.
Similarly, Dr. Paul Paquet, a Project Coyote science advisor, was not deemed a credible expert in this case. While Paquet has experience with coyotes and wolves, his knowledge of Canada lynx in Maine was limited, particularly when compared to Dr. Mark Elowe, a Maine-based wildlife expert with decades of field experience. The Court ultimately found that Dr. Elowe’s extensive professional background outweighed the testimony of both Fox and Paquet, reinforcing concerns that their participation was more about advancing an ideological agenda than providing sound scientific expertise. This ruling underscores how Fox’s advocacy work often blurs the line between science and activism, raising questions about the credibility of Project Coyote’s broader claims.
Ultimately, both Camilla Fox and Dr. Paul Paquet failed to meet the standard of objective expertise in the case, with the Court favoring testimony from professionals with direct, long-term experience in Maine’s wildlife management. Their lack of specific expertise on Canada lynx in Maine, combined with their strong advocacy positions, undermined their credibility as scientific experts. The Court’s ruling highlights a broader issue with Project Coyote’s approach, where activism is often presented as science, despite lacking the necessary depth of research and field experience.
When it comes to making decisions about conservation and predator management, scientific expertise must come from those with direct, unbiased field experience—not from individuals who repeatedly blur the line between advocacy and science.
The Marin Livestock Protection Program (MLPP) was established in 2001 after Marin County ended its contract with USDA Wildlife Services in response to pressure from animal advocacy groups led in part by Camilla Fox. It was intended to reduce livestock predation by solely promoting nonlethal alternatives.
Fox played a significant role in promoting the LPP as a nonlethal success, citing rancher support in 2006–2007. However, subsequent data contradict her claims, showing increased predation, financial strain, and producer dissatisfaction. Her advocacy helped shape policies that removed professional predator management, yet the evidence suggests the program has failed to deliver effective long-term solutions.
The Marin County Livestock Protection
Dr. Stephanie Larson, the livestock and rangeland advisor with UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) in Sonoma County, California published a study on the Marin Livestock Protection Program. Dr. Larson specializes in rangeland management, sustainable agriculture, and livestock production.
The Marin Livestock Protection Program (LPP), spearheaded by Camilla Fox and other wildlife advocates, has faced scrutiny regarding its effectiveness and financial viability. Intended as a nonlethal alternative to the USDA’s Wildlife Services (WS) predator control program, it was initially championed as a success by Fox (2008) and organizations like Project Coyote. However, data indicate that livestock losses have risen since the transition, placing economic strain on sheep producers.
Critics highlight several concerns, including:
Limited Participation & Declining Sheep Industry: The program only covers 38% of Marin County's sheep, with several commercial producers exiting the business due to excessive predation.
Increased Coyote Depredation: Field research suggests that stopping lethal control led to significant increases in predation losses, consistent with findings in other regions.
Ineffectiveness of Nonlethal Methods: While some ranchers adopted guard dogs and fencing, these methods are costly, inconsistent in effectiveness, and not feasible for larger rangelands.
Financial Instability: The LPP’s budget has steadily declined, making it difficult to provide adequate support, and the compensation program for lost livestock was abandoned after only a few years.
Increased Lethal Control: Despite being touted as a nonlethal model, ranchers continue to kill more coyotes now than under WS, but in a less selective and potentially less effective manner.
Animal advocacy groups, led by individuals like Camilla Fox, have pushed predator management policies without the necessary expertise in wildlife management, leading to long-term negative consequences for both wildlife and people. The Marin Livestock Protection Program (LPP) was promoted as a nonlethal alternative but failed to prevent increasing livestock losses, driving ranchers out of business and forcing those who remained to resort to less selective lethal control.
Wildlife advocates face no consequences for the policies they push—when their programs fail, they simply shift focus to the next ideological campaign, leaving people and wildlife to bear the burden of their misguided policies.
Sign up to receive updates on all things coyote from public safety concerns to coyote behavior and biology. Be informed and get Involved!