Popular coyote myths

Animal advocates argue that coyotes naturally self-regulate their populations through behaviors such as territoriality and resource partitioning. They believe that coyotes establish and defend territories, which limits how many individuals can sustainably live in a given area. Additionally, by specializing in different resources or hunting strategies, coyotes reduce direct competition with each other. In this view, when resources become scarce, territorial boundaries may expand or lead to conflicts that naturally thin out the population, ensuring a balance within the ecosystem. Advocates contend that, under undisturbed conditions, these innate behaviors help maintain a stable coyote population without the need for human intervention. 

This perspective has a few problems: 

• Disregard for Dispersal Mechanisms: The self-regulation argument often overlooks dispersal, which is a key factor in coyote population dynamics. As younger or subordinate coyotes are forced out of established territories, they disperse to new areas with available resources. This colonization of new territories can lead to population expansion beyond the limits of existing territories, thereby undermining the idea that territoriality alone is sufficient to regulate coyote numbers. 

• Adaptability and Generalism: Coyotes are highly adaptable generalists. Their omnivorous diet and ability to thrive in diverse habitats—from wildlands to urban environments—allow them to exploit a broad range of resources. This adaptability means they can quickly take advantage of food subsidies in human-dominated landscapes, leading to population increases that exceed what traditional territorial limits might otherwise impose.

• Flexible Social Structures: The notion that territoriality strictly limits coyote populations does not always hold true. Coyotes sometimes form loose, overlapping territories or even cooperative social groups, which can reduce the effectiveness of territorial boundaries as a population control mechanism.

• Anthropogenic Influences: Human activity can significantly alter the dynamics of resource availability. Urban sprawl, agricultural practices, and other human-induced changes often provide abundant food sources (e.g., garbage, rodent populations) that support larger coyote populations than would naturally occur in a more pristine environment.

Studies indicate coyote populations are generally regulated by food availability. 

"Litter size was significantly related to rabbit abundance, while rodent abundance was less of a factor influencing reproductive effort. Accounting for both changes in prey abundance and coyote density, litter size was significantly related to total prey abundance/coyote. With increasing prey and reduced coyote density, mean litter size doubled in the removal area compared to pre-removal levels; females in the non-removal area also increased litter size in response to increased rabbit abundance."  (Gese 2005)

Ironically, advocates misquote this study to claim lethal control of coyotes leads to more coyotes, ignoring the fact increased food availability led to increased coyote pup litter size in both the area where coyotes were being removed and the area where they were not being removed.  

More on quality of food,  From: "The percentage of females that breed in a given year varies with local conditions. Food supply is usually the prime factor, in good years, more females, especially yearlings, breed. Usually, about 60-90% of adult females and 0-70% of female yearlings will produce litters."  (Bekoff Gese 2003)  

Estimates of coyote population densities throughout the West and Midwest are typically 0.2 to 1.5 coyotes per square mile and occasionally 5 to 10 coyotes per square mile. 

Suburban coyotes in Southern California were found to occupy home ranges as small as 0.25 to 0.56 square mile. This suggests that suburban environments are extraordinarily rich in resources for coyotes, leading to high densities. (Timm et al 2004)  

Given the overwhelming evidence from multiple studies, the idea that coyotes self-regulate their populations through territoriality and resource partitioning falls short. Research shows that coyote reproduction and density are primarily driven by food availability rather than strict territorial limits. With few natural predators, an omnivorous diet that thrives in both wild and urban landscapes, and flexible social structures that allow for dispersal and overlapping territories, coyotes can exploit abundant resources to sustain high densities. Moreover, with 60% to 90% of adult females producing litters of 4 to 6 pups per year, it is clear that under favorable conditions, coyote populations are more likely to expand rather than self-regulate. No reasonable observer can believe that these factors would naturally limit coyote numbers without external constraints. 

One of the many beneficial claims of coyote advocates is the idea that coyotes control Lyme by controlling disease carrying rodents. 

Probably not. 

In an article, Project Coyote Massachusetts representative John Maguranis stated coyotes provide " free rodent control" that helps combat Lyme disease. Well, Phillip J. Baker, Executive Director of The American Lyme Disease Foundation when asked if this rang true his response was "I know of no data on [coyotes] impact with regard to the spread of Lyme disease,” “I suspect that if there is an impact of coyotes on the spread of Lyme disease, it is likely to be trivial if any.”

Several studies have shown that this premise is not only faulty but coyotes in fact may help increase the instances of Lyme disease by preying on a more efficient predator of mice; fox. One study worth checking out Deer, predators, and the emergence of Lyme disease.  Taal Levi, A. Marm Kilpatrick, Marc Mangel and Christopher C. Wilmers

 
"We show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York.

In another article,  Where foxes thrive, Lyme disease doesn't the case is made that rising coyote populations in the Northeast U.S. may be indirectly fueling the spread of Lyme disease by preying on red foxes, which are effective predators of Lyme-carrying mice. In Dutchess County, areas with abundant foxes and low coyote activity show lower tick infection rates, while regions with more coyotes and fewer foxes tend to have higher rates of Lyme-infected ticks. These findings challenge the common belief that deer are the primary drivers of Lyme disease, highlighting instead the crucial role that small-mammal predators play in controlling the disease’s spread. 

 
Levi believes that the return in the Northeast of coyotes in the last half-century, which prey on foxes, is leading to fewer foxes in some areas, and a resulting increase in Lyme.
 

Despite claims that coyotes offer “free rodent control” to reduce Lyme disease, evidence suggests the opposite. Research indicates that coyotes may increase Lyme disease by preying on red foxes—more efficient predators of Lyme-carrying mice. Studies link declining fox populations, due to rising coyote numbers, with higher Lyme disease rates, challenging the notion that coyotes help control the disease.

The implied messages are these: We are building on historic coyote habitat; coyotes were here first; we are encroaching on their habitat; coyotes have a right to be here. 

Historically, human encroachment on wildlife habitat and loss of habitat have negatively impacted many wildlife species, but the coyote isn’t one of them. Coyotes have benefited from human alterations to the North American landscape. While historically we’ve displaced coyotes in some places where cities and towns grew, at the same time coyotes have been spreading across the continent, perhaps more successfully than another mammal except humans.   

Ironically, in the past 20 years, we’ve witnessed a dramatic reversal of this encroachment process: coyotes are actually encroaching on our habitat, and they are doing so at an unprecedented rate. In metropolitan areas, predominately human habitat, we have created safe, superior habitat for coyotes. They aren’t forced to live among us – they choose to live among us. Therefore, we (i.e., property owners, city administrators, wildlife professionals) should be dictating where and how coyotes live, not vice versa. We shouldn’t have to be held captive in our own homes or backyards simply because coyotes have moved into our neighborhoods. 

Current policy should not consider urban pets simply “part of the food chain.” At some point, we need to draw a line on the asphalt and warn coyotes that they are now entering “people country.” 

Wildlife management is not about who has rights to be here based on who got here first. Many of those  claiming "coyotes were here first" live in major metropolitan areas of the U.S. most of which were settled by Native Americans, centuries before European settlement. 

In Los Angeles, the Tongva were living in Southern California 3,500 years ago. 

In the Southwest U.S. (New Mexico, Arizona, Utah) the Navajo inhabited these areas in the 1400s.  

In Chicago, one of the first major cities to study urban coyotes and advocate coexistence, the Illiniwek Indians and Miami tribe inhabited the land in the 1600's, about 150 years before the area was ceded to the U.S. 

Modern wildlife management seeks to maintain and restore appropriate balances between the needs of wildlife and man. Claiming coyotes lived here first is not an argument and seeks to deflect from meaningful discussion regarding how we manage urban wildlife. 

Animal advocates often claim domestic dogs, bee stings or errant champagne corks pose a greater threat to safety than coyotes. These argument fail to provide proper context and is a "red herring" used to distract from the need to manage coyotes posing a public safety threat. 

Comparing wild coyotes to domesticated dogs is not an apples to apples comparison. This argument fails to consider dogs have been selectively bred for centuries to work for us and be our companions. We spend far more time in much closer proximity to our dogs than coyotes. 

Once again, advocacy groups fail  to provide proper perspective or context.  Their objective is to downplay any threat urban coyotes pose to people and their pets.  One study found a predictable behavioral pattern demonstrated by coyotes leading to attacks on pets and people. 

"Based on an analysis of coyote attacks previously described, there is a predictable sequence of observed changes in coyote behavior that indicates an increasing risk to human safety (Baker and Timm 1998). We now define these changes, in order of their usual pattern of occurance as follows: 

1) An increase in observing coyotes on streets and in yards at night

2) An increase in coyotes approaching adults and/or taking pets at night

3) Early morning and late afternoon daylight observance of coyotes on streets and in parks and yards

4) Daylight observance of coyotes chasing or taking pets

5) Coyotes attacking and taking pets on leash or in close proximity to their owners; coyotes chasing joggers, bicyclists, and other adults

6) Coyotes seen in and around children’s play areas, school grounds, and parks in mid-day

7) Coyotes acting aggressively toward adults during mid-day.

(Timm et al. 2004)

Admittedly, we are seeing human-coyote conflicts in urban settings rise to unprecedented levels, and most are quite recent. To date, coyotes have attacked people in at least 19 states and 4 Canadian provinces (Timm and Baker 2007).  

As humans, the idea of coexistence implies we follow the social constructs of mutual respect and understanding regardless of race, gender, religion, socio-economic background, culture etc. We accomplish this through education and social peer pressure determining what is acceptable and unacceptable.  When humans behave in a way society deems unacceptable we have laws to address these transgressions. Starting with education and depending on the nature of the offense, imprisonment up to the penalty of death.   

The same cannot be said for coyotes. Often, when coyotes attack pets or children, the blame is often placed squarely on humans instead of the offending animal. 

Municipalities and animal control agencies often apply a double standard to offending wildlife when compared to domestic dogs. Most agencies would quickly euthanize a domestic dog for attacking and killing another dog. Coyotes are given a pass for the same behavior. 

Dogs and coyotes are canines and are both ancestors of wolves. Canids attack for the same reasons; hunger, dominance, territoriality and self defense. We need to apply the same rules to coyotes as we do other domestic animals. Groups like PETA and local Humane Societies often put down thousands of cats and dogs yearly for lack of homes (overpopulation), or they're found unadoptable for behavioral problems. 

This hypocrisy should be especially concerning since many consider family pets as part of the family.  Its not a surprise to find out that as much as 20% of those who have lost pets to coyotes suffer symptoms of PTSD.  STUDY 

Coexistence implies we should allow coyotes to expand their range into human habitat, setting a dangerous precedent placing the welfare of coyotes ahead of public safety, pets livestock, and urban wildlife. 

Coyotes are highly adaptable, opportunistic, fairly large predators that exploit environments and assert their dominance in order to survive. That’s all they “know to do.” Coyotes explore and exploit whatever niche is available to them until something constrains them.   

In Yellowstone National Park, that constraint is the reintroduction of wolves (Canis lupus). Where wolves are now present, coyote densities have dropped. While some wolves have attacked and killed coyotes, most of this change is behavioral: coyote have learned to avoid wolves, but they remain present in good numbers in areas where wolves are scarce. It took relatively few coyote deaths by wolves to condition remaining coyotes to lay low or move out of wolf areas.   I hypothesize that coyotes in suburbia don’t behave any differently than coyotes in Yellowstone. "As successive generations of urban coyotes become more habituated to people, they will exploit that environment and assert their dominance until something (or someone) gives them good reason to be wary of humans." (Oleyar 2010)

Much of the behavior we see in urban coyotes today is not really new. Habituated coyotes were observed begging tourists for food in Yellowstone as early as 1947 , and in God’s Dog, author Hope Ryden (1975) describes a Yellowstone coyote jumping into her car and refusing to leave.   

Trapping and euthanizing coyotes that demonstrate problmatic behavior as part of an overall management plan that includes education is reasonable and necessary to keep a healthy coyote population in balance. We should condition coyotes to be wary of humans, not the other way around.