You can stop the misinformation cycle by doing the following:
The idea is that if humans leave coyotes alone, they will maintain their own numbers is probably the most outlandish bit of storytelling.
From: "Coyote (Canis latrans)" by Marc Bekoff (Project Coyote Science Advisor) and Eric M. Gese December 2003. LINK
Pregnancy Rate, Gestation and Liter Size:
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.
Estimates of coyote populations densities throughout the West and Midwest are typically 0.2 to 1.5 coyotes per square mile but with occasionally 5 to 10 coyotes per square mile reported. Suburban coyotes in Southern California were found to occupy home ranges of only 0.25 to 0.56 square mile. This suggests that suburban environments are extraordinarily rich in resources for coyotes, leading to high densities. LINK
With no natural predators throughout most of their range other than man coupled with an omnivorous diet and 60% to 90% of coyote females producing litters of 4 to 6 pups per year; no reasonable person could possibly believe coyotes are capable of self regulation.
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.
Consider states like California where 80% of the population lives in urban areas, only 6.8% of the land is considered developed. On average, 5.8% of the land in the lower 48 states is considered developed. LINK
Another study puts the percentage of developed land in California at 7%
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.”
Modern coyotes were typically from the central plains areas of the U.S. and northern Mexico. If you look carefully at the historical range maps presented by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HERE) anyone could see the coyote has expanded its range from the central plains area of the U.S., North to Alaska and South to Central America. The common understanding is that coyotes migrated along with European settlement. Coyotes learned to exploit mans alteration of the landscape, taking advantage of irrigation, agriculture and livestock. These same resources create favorable habitat for their natural prey species.
The Nevada Division of Wildlife states: "Prior to the arrival of
European people in north America, coyotes were found only in
the central part of the U.S. and in northern Mexico." LINK
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife in their "Trapping
License Examination Guide Revised 01/14 states: Historically,
coyotes were most common on the Great Plains of North America.
They have since extended their range from Central America to the
Arctic, including all of the United States (except Hawaii), Canada,
and Mexico. California Department of Fish & Wildlife. (GUIDE)
Some have pointed to fossilized remains of coyotes found in the
Rancho La Brea tarpits as evidence of coyotes living in Los Angeles
before man. These remains found are of an extinct sub species of coyote
Canis Latrans Orcutti. This species went extinct during the late
Pleistocene Epoch which ended approximately 10 to 11 thousand years ago.
If the argument is attempting to point out mans urban sprawl is taking away coyote habitat, consider that even in states like California where 80% of the population lives in urban areas, only 6.8% of the land is considered developed. On average, 5.8% of the land in the lower 48 states is considered developed. LINK
Wildlife management is not about who has rights to be here based on "dibs" or 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 LINK In the Southwest U.S. (New Mexico, Arizona, Utah) the Navajo inhabited these areas in the 1400s. LINK 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. LINK
Animal Rights activists claim there are much bigger threats to people than coyotes, often citing domestic dog attacks as a much bigger threat. While at least 4.5–4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year and, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20 to 30 of these result in death they would be right.
In California for example, the California Department of Fish & Wildlife estimates there are approximately 700,000 coyotes in California. Looking at census data; 36.5% of the 105,480,101 households own on average of 1.6 dogs. That's 13.22 million dogs. LINK Their argument fails to consider we spend far more time in much closer proximity to our dogs that were bred to be our companions that also outnumber coyotes 18 to 1.
Once again, activist groups fail to provide proper perspective or context. Their objective is to downplay the very real threat urban coyotes pose to people and their pets.
The simple truth is two humans have been killed in North America by coyotes. Kelly Keen in 1981 in Glendale, CA and Taylor Mitchell in 2009 at Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Canada. There have also been scores of close calls where child escaped likely "serious or fatal bodily injury" if the child had not been rescued in time. LINK
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).
The Humane Society of the U.S. and Project Coyote both use the following INFOGRAPHIC to explain how through indiscriminate killing coyote packs are disrupted. This disruption allegedly results in a coyote "mating free for all." Dr. Eric Gese who currently works at the National Wildlife Research Center in Logan, Utah and is currently a professor at the Department of Wildlands Resources at Utah State University.
LINK Dr. Gese has been studying coyotes and producing studies on coyotes for decades LINK When asked about the infographic (HERE)
his response was "oversimplified and unproven." Project Coyote and
HSUS blame lethal control for disrupting coyote populations when coyote populations are in constant flux from natural forces and experience an already high natural mortality rate.
In "Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy" co-authored by Project Coyote Science Advisor Robert Crabtree and Dr. Eric Gese. In the study it was observed when packs were disrupted by vehicle strikes or other unknown occurrences, beta coyotes take the place of alpha coyotes. There is no mating free for all. Its also important to remember Project Coyote Science Advisor Robert Crabtree co authored the study. It clearly shows how this group cherry picks data to support their animal rights views.
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, tax paying residents, pets livestock and urban wildlife which are not accustomed to coexisting with this invasive predator.
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. 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 as part of an overall management plan that includes education outreach is reasonable and necessary to keep a healthy coyote population in balance. We should condition coyotes to be wary of humans.
The idea is that if removed, coyotes magically compensate by having larger litters and breeding more frequently.
Practically every study examining coyote reproduction makes reference to a study conducted by Longhurst and Connelly in 1975. Several articles and studies misquote the Longhurst Connelly study claiming lethal control creates more coyotes when Longhurst and Connelly's model predicts coyote populations can withstand high levels of control, and can recover quickly when control is terminated, the proverbial “rebound effect.” However, there is not a “catapult effect”, as some want to believe. In fact, Connolly himself maintains that those who use the paper to oppose coyote management (i.e.,control) use it inappropriately and out of context. Connelly said “killing coyotes at rates below 75% may merely stimulate reproduction and aggravate the problem,” has “little or no relevance to selective removal of a few problem coyotes, and people who claim otherwise are just damaging their own credibility” from "How Misinformation Fosters Human Coyote Conflict" LINK
In The Effects of Control on Coyote Populations: A Simulation Model LINK Authors Connolly and Longhurst themselves refer to the model as the "if then simulator." In the introduction of the study the authors point out "the model is an abstract representation of a complex biosystem. Like any other model it is a simplification of real phenomena and requires certain assumptions." The authors then point out eight "assumptions" that have to be made in order for the model to function.
One of the most important considerations not accounted for in this study that has been consistently overlooked was quality of habitat. The model does not consider the availability of food and cover between the areas where coyote control was conducted and not It is well documented that food is the primary factor controlling population densities. In a book edited by Project Coyote Science advisor Dr. Mark Bekoff “Coyote Biology, Behavior and Management” Guy E. Connoly points out.“Nearly all animal populations fluctuate irregularly within limits that are extremely restricted compared to what is theoretically possible. Population levels of several species of carnivores have been shown to fluctuate in response to variations in the abundance of their principal prey” “Therefore, it is not surprising that most studies of the factors limiting coyote populations have identified food as the predominant constraint.”
The following is a letter from Dr. Guy Connolly to a concerned citizen regarding the misapplication of the Connolly Longhurst model by animal rights groups to dissuade policy makers from trapping bold urban coyotes.
June 2, 2018
Thanks for your note on May 31st about coyote population dynamics and coyote damage control. I’m sorry that my previous communications weren’t clear. I’ll try to do better this time.
Regarding coyote reproduction increases in response to control, I think I’m getting a bum rap from the people who tell you that coyote numbers will zoom out of sight if any are killed. It’s true that reproduction will increase among the survivors of intensive control programs, but the increase is much less than your critics claim. Plus, you don’t have intensive coyote control in urban situations.
In 1975 I estimated that, compared to a population with no predator control, the number of pups born annually would increase about 10 to 20 percent if 20 to 30 percent of the entire coyote population is killed annually, year after year. Such an increase wouldn’t even be noticeable unless coyote numbers were monitored closely, which they rarely are. And a 20 to 30 percent annual kill is much higher than would ever happen with your urban coyotes.
What I’m saying is that potential increases in coyote births are so low that they’re not relevant in urban coyote damage situations involving a few problem coyotes. The problem individuals are only a small fraction of the coyote population, and their removal can’t reasonably be called intensive population control.
This is why I wrote to Mr. Oleyar that I was surprised to hear my 1975 modeling report being used to argue against killing problem coyotes. The long term population dynamics represented in that model just aren’t relevant to short term management of local damage situations caused by small numbers of problem individuals.
When coyotes are killing pets and threatening children in urban situations, in my opinion the last thing we should do is argue the technicalities of coyote population dynamics. Instead, we should remove the problem coyotes as quickly, efficiently, and humanely as possible. And stop people from feeding the coyotes.
I hope this helps.
DON'T TRAP COYOTES, MORE WILL TAKE THEIR PLACE
Advocates attempt to downplay the effectiveness of trapping by claiming trapping is only a temporary solution because other coyotes will quickly come in to fill the void. Well, they're partly right. Trapping once and considering the problem solved is about as silly as getting one haircut and considering that task done. Just like hair, coyotes management plans require maintenance. However, they fail to recognize the effectiveness of trapping as part of a well rounded urban coyote management plan that includes education and coyote behavior monitoring.
I'd like to quote another famous canid biologist Frederick Knowlton who has been studying coyote behavior since 1960, Knowlton argues that it is necessary to kill coyotes to protect livestock even if the coyotes return. "I've been mowing my grass for 30 years, and it still grows back," he says. "That doesn't mean I'm not doing it right."
Coyotes living in areas without additional irrigation, living off food sources naturally occurring have population densities averaging .4 to 1.3 coyotes per square mile. Even if every person followed the advice of removing attractants typically found suburban environments there would still be water provided through irrigation. Golf courses, parks, green belts and unimproved areas are practically everywhere in suburbia, providing attractants and cover to rodents, rabbits and other small animals coyotes prey upon. That is why even with suburbanites removing the recommended attractants, suburbia would still be an extraordinarily rich environment for coyotes. This ample supply of resources is the major reason coyote populations are on average 8 times higher in cities when compared to their natural environment.
Similarly we are told to bring pets which were traditionally kept outdoors, inside. Pets are made prisoners in their own homes only allowed to go out on supervised bathroom breaks for fear of being attacked by coyotes. Some feel this may be an exaggeration, many do not especially considering how large municipalities have decided to buy into the misinformation supplied by animal rights advocates to avoid risking negative media attention and harassment. Cities like Long Beach California is a prime example of a city that refuses to conduct any lethal control of coyotes in spite of numerous reports of coyotes attacking pets in backyards included pets being ripped from leashes.
Many residents have lived in their communities for decades without any negative interactions with coyotes. Coyote incidents involving people and pets are on the rise. LONG BEACH COYOTE TRACKER
To date, Long Beach leaders refuse to discuss an incident where coyotes likely entered an unsecured residence and removed the remains of Terence Michael Griffin Jr. LINK
Removing attractants is a good policy but does nothing to address coyote population management. Instead it allows coyotes to breed without restraint, placing the burden of coexistence on humans. Trapping and removing coyotes displaying inappropriate behavior is reasonable and appropriate. Not doing so allows coyotes to increase their population densities to dangerous levels.
Following the lethal attack on a 3-year-old girl in Glendale in August 1981, authorities removed 55 coyotes from within one-half mile (0.8 km) of the attack site over a period of 80 days. LINK
While generally true, advocates often attempt to humanize coyotes by claiming coyotes as being part of a loving monogamous relationship. Coyotes are considered obligate monogmists, meaning that the success of a litter is dependent on the cooperation of both parents. Canid species reinforce social monogamy with behaviors such as continual proximity of the pair during estrus, displayed mating preferences, absence of unrelated adult conspecifics (member of the same species) in the home range of the breeding pair, and breeding by only 1 pair in the social group .
Extra-pair copulations (EPCs) have been discovered in every canid mating system that has been investigated genetically, regardless that social monogamy was the observed norm. Indeed, some researchers have predicted that EPCs would be discovered in any canid species investigated genetically.
Interestingly in a study co-authored by Project Coyote Science Advisor Robert Crabtree "Foraging ecology of coyotes (Canis latrans): the
influence of extrinsic factors and a dominance hierarchy." LINK The alpha female abandoned the Norris territory for a month and was observed traveling throughout the valley during which time she mated with 3 different males before returning to the territory.
Wildlife Killing Contest
Organized social event involving regulated and legal hunting methods.
With busy schedules and family life most hunters have limited time to spend in the field. Given a choice, many prefer to spend their time at these events for the camaraderie of other hunters and the possibility of winning raffle prizes.
Legal, recreational hunting. Overseen by state wildlife agencies with input from professional biologists.
War on Wildlife
Any wildlife management conducted using lethal control
Be subserviant to an invasive predatory mammal
Legal, recreational hunting and or trapping.
Wildlife is held in public trust
Wildlife is ONLY for the enjoyment by members of the public that share animal rights views
One of the many beneficial claims of coyote advocates is the idea that coyotes control rodents thereby controlling Lyme disease carrying rodents. Well, maybe not.
In an article, Project Coyote Massachusetts representative John Maguranis stated "coyotes are free rodent control" that helps combat Lyme disease. When Phillip J. Baker, Executive Director of The American Lyme Disease Foundation was 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.
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.
Where foxes thrive, Lyme disease doesn't
Dutchess County has consistently ranked among the top counties in the nation for per-capita rates of Lyme disease, caused by the bite of the black-legged tick. Taal Levi, a National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellow from the University of California at Santa Cruz, believes that where the population of foxes declines, Lyme disease increases.
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.
Why anyone continues to feel animal rights groups could be trusted authorities on animal behavior and biology defies logic.