Welcome to Coyote Bytes

Here, we dish out a mix of all things coyote—from wildlife management controversies to the sometimes wild antics of animal activists. Whether it's tackling coyote management issues or diving into the heated debates around it, this page explores the fascinating (and often quirky) side of coyote conservation. We’ll keep you in the loop on the latest in animal advocacy and reveal some surprising info surrounding our favorite trickster.

Rogue Rehabbers - more harm than help

In 2017, it was discovered through an article in The Acorn that Wildlife Care of Southern California (WCSC), a wildlife rehabilitation organization based in Simi Valley, CA, had been treating coyotes in the field for severe mange. This practice, which involved using medicated food, sparked concerns about its legality, ecological risks, and broader implications for wildlife management.

The Medication in Question: Fluralaner

The medication used by WCSC to treat mange in coyotes is Fluralaner, a substance commonly prescribed to domestic dogs under the brand name Bravecto. According to the manufacturer, Cayman Chemical, Fluralaner remains 90% unchanged in feces, which raises serious environmental concerns. This medication is described as "acutely toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects," and it is harmful to fish, plankton, and could potentially damage fertility or affect the unborn child. The fact that Fluralaner persists in the environment through feces that may enter urban runoff further exacerbates these risks, as it can reach streams, lakes, and oceans, impacting delicate aquatic ecosystems.

Legal and Ethical Issues

The treatment of coyotes with medicated food raises important legal questions. Under California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 251.1, it is illegal to harass, feed, or disrupt the behavior of wildlife, including coyotes. This law was specifically designed to prevent the kind of behavior seen in the WCSC's actions. The intentional distribution of medication in the field to coyotes violates this law by disrupting natural animal behavior, potentially leading to further habituation of coyotes to humans and increasing the likelihood of human-wildlife conflict.

Despite being informed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that their actions were illegal, WCSC continued to treat coyotes in secret.

Ecological Consequences

Treating coyotes in the field with Fluralaner raises broader ecological concerns, as the unintended consequences may outweigh the benefits. While the goal was to alleviate individual suffering, WCSC may have inadvertently contributed to an increase in the urban coyote population. Additionally, interfering with natural disease processes like mange, which helps regulate wildlife populations, can have long-term effects. By preventing coyotes from developing natural immunity, this treatment may make them more susceptible to future outbreaks and reduce genetic diversity, potentially leaving the population more vulnerable to environmental challenges.

Legal Violations and Financial Concerns

In addition to the environmental and ecological concerns, WCSC’s actions raise serious questions about their handling of taxpayer-funded grants. In 2021 and 2022, WCSC received grants intended for wildlife rehabilitation efforts, despite not meeting the eligibility requirements by violating the rules they had agreed to follow.

Conclusion

While the intention behind WCSC’s efforts to treat coyotes suffering from mange may have been compassionate, their methods raise serious legal, ethical, and environmental concerns. The use of unapproved medications, the disruption of natural wildlife behaviors, and the potential harm to aquatic ecosystems are significant risks that cannot be overlooked. Wildlife rehabilitation must be conducted in a controlled and legal manner, following established protocols to ensure the safety and well-being of both the animals and the environment. As this situation demonstrates, responsible wildlife management is essential to protect wildlife populations and their habitats for future generations.

Update -

All of the above (and more) was brought to Ca Fish and WIldlife in a packet to the CDFW Wildlife Resource Committee meeting on Sept 19, 2023 and they did nothing about it. CDFW staffers turned a blind eye to the wildlfe rehabber groups illegal activities. It is believed WCSC continues to illegally treat coyotes in the field for mange. CDFW was also notified of the likely California Environmental Quality Act CEQA violation for letting this group continue to act outside the law by putting toxicants into the environment. Their response "Thank you.for sharing that"
The documents posted below go into gdetail.

MORE Advocate Antics

Rebecca Dmytryk... Gives a Masterclass in Misinformation

It was a fine September day when Rebecca Dmytryk stepped up to the podium at the September 2023 Wildlife Resources Committee meeting, armed with a PowerPoint presentation and a well-practiced look of concern. The mission? Convince the Commission that California's existing wildlife management codes were outdated, ineffective, and in dire need of revision—specifically, that sections 4152 and 4180, which allow for broader take of nongame mammals under certain conditions, were somehow unjust and needed to be challenged. Rebecca and her cohorts felt the City of Torrance should only be able to trap coyotes if they were in the act of causing damage.

Of course, as with any good performance, facts were optional.

Dmytryk’s argument was built on a flimsy premise: that these sections of the Fish and Game Code required wildlife to be actively causing damage in order to be legally trapped. An interesting claim, given that the codes in question don’t actually restrict trapping at all, but rather expand allowances for take when animals are found to be damaging property. But why let accuracy get in the way of advocacy?

Then came the real showstopper—Exhibit 1. A collection of studies, meticulously cherry-picked and misrepresented to fit the narrative. This was the part where she dazzled the audience with authoritative-sounding citations that, upon closer inspection, said nothing of the sort.

Take Kilgo et al. (2017), for instance. According to Dmytryk, this study proved that "coyote populations return to approximate pre-trapping levels in less than one year." A damning statistic—if only the study actually said that. In reality, Kilgo merely suggested that coyote populations "appear" to recover quickly through compensatory reproduction and immigration. No timeline, no definitive conclusion—just a vague observation twisted into an absolute statement.

Then there was Minnie et al. (2016), cited as proof that "coyotes demonstrate reproductive compensation and compensatory immigration." Except Minnie et al. never studied coyotes at all. Their research focused on jackals and made no direct observations on coyote ecology. A minor detail, surely.

And let’s not forget Kilgo et al. once again, this time enlisted to prove that "exploited populations exhibit increased pregnancy rates and litter size." The only problem? The actual study stated, "We did not record large increases in litter sizes but saw coyotes at one of the three sites breed at younger ages." A rather inconvenient contradiction, but nothing a little creative interpretation couldn’t fix.

Then came Schmidt & Timm (2007), their words repurposed to argue against trapping as a management tool. What Dmytryk conveniently left out, however, was that these same authors explicitly supported selective removal of problem coyotes to restore fear of humans. The full quote? "It is often possible for professionals to remove them (coyotes) by use of firearms or traps. This is predator damage control, not 'predator control'; no attempt is made to exterminate the entire population of coyotes. Complete elimination is not practical nor is it necessary to solve the problem." But who has time for context when there's an agenda to push?

By the time the presentation wrapped up, one thing was clear: this wasn’t about science. It wasn’t about responsible wildlife management. It was about ideology. And when ideology takes precedence over facts, bad policy decisions follow.

Public trust in wildlife management relies on transparency and accuracy. When advocates manipulate studies to mislead decision-makers, it doesn’t just damage credibility—it undermines the role of science in policy altogether. If the public starts believing that regulations are based on misinformation, they’re far less likely to support future measures, even when they are backed by solid research.

So, what did we learn from this spectacle? That when it comes to advocacy, reality is often just an inconvenient detail—one that can be bent, stretched, or discarded entirely in the pursuit of an agenda. And that’s a far bigger threat to effective wildlife management.