Urban Coyote Ecology - Cook County Coyote Project

8/9/2019 Urban Coyote Ecology - Cook County Coyote Project

1/32

Urban Coyote Ecology

and Management

The Cook County, Illinois, Coyote Project

Bulleti


2/32

Author

Stanley D. GehrtSchool o Environment and Natural ResourcesThe Ohio State University

Acknowledgments

This project has been supported primarily by Cook County (Illinois) Animal Control, withspecial support rom the Max McGraw Wildlie Foundation and the Forest Preserve Districto Cook County (FPDCC).

In particular, we would like to thank Dr. Dan Parmer or his support. Chris Anchor, FPDCC,has provided invaluable assistance with many aspects o the project. Rob Erickson wascontracted to assist with coyote trapping. Many technicians and volunteers associated withthe Max McGraw Wildlie Foundation have contributed to radio-tracking and processingcaptured individuals. Paul Morey radio-tracked coyotes and conducted diet analyses. JustinBrown provided inormation on coyote predation on goose eggs.

Dr. Mike Kinsel and the Zoological Pathology Program, University o Illinois Laboratorieso Veterinary Medicine, perormed necropsies; Dr. John Andrews at the University o Illinoisassisted with serology; and Dr. Tom Meehan and his sta perormed ecal analyses.

Dr. Jean Dubach, Brookeld Zoo, is perorming genetic analyses o radio-collared coyotes.Robert Boelens, Stanley Park Ecology Society; Brian MacGowan, Purdue University; and Dr.Gary San Julian, Pennsylvania State University, kindly provided external reviews that greatlyimproved the manuscript.

Production

Editing, Joy Ann Fischer, Communications and TechnologyDesign, John K. Victor, Communications and Technology

Ohio State University Extension embraces human diversity and is committed to ensuringthat all educational programs conducted by OSU Extension are available to clientele on anondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, age, gender identity or expression,

disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or veteran status.

Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President or Agricultural Administration and Director, OhioState University Extension

TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868 Contents

11/063MPS JOB #XXXXXXXXX


3/32

ContentsGhosts of the Cities 4

The Cook County, Illinois, Coyote Project 5

Ecological Characteristics of Urban Coyotes 7

Where Do Coyotes Come From? 7What Do Coyotes Look Like? 8How Do I Know I Coyotes Are Present? 10Do Urban Coyotes Form Packs? 11How Long Do Urban Coyotes Live? 12When Do Coyotes Have Young? 14What Do Urban Coyotes Eat? 15

Where Are Urban Coyotes Found? 16What Good Are Coyotes? 19

What Eect Do Coyotes Have on Other Wildlie? 21

Conflicts Between Coyotes and Humans 22

Are All Coyotes a Threat to People? 23What Creates Nuisance Coyotes? 23

Management Options 26

The Future 28

Implications from the Cook County Coyote Project 29

Selected Bibliography 30


4/32

4

Ghosts of the Cities

Originally known as ghosts o the plains, coyotes have now become ghosts o

the cities, occasionally heard but rarely seen. A relatively recent phenomenon,

coyotes have become the top carnivores in an increasing number o metropolitan

areas across North America, including one o the largest urban centers in the

Midwest the Chicago metropolitan region. However, compared to other

urban wildlie, we know very little about how coyotes are becoming successul in

landscapes dominated by people.

Our limited understanding o how coyotes succeed in urban landscapes hampers

management o this animal. Even knowledge o their basic ecology is incomplete,

which is important because diets, social behavior, movement patterns, and survival

may change with urbanization. Nevertheless, as coyotes become increasingly

abundant in the cities so does the need

or basic inormation rom which to

develop management strategies.

In areas where coyotes have existed

with people or some time, such

as the southwestern United States,

conficts with coyotes threaten the

health and well-being o people

and pets. Are extreme conficts the

inevitable result o the relatively recent

emergence o coyotes in Midwestern

and eastern U.S. cities? What are the ull

ramications or people, pets, and other

wildlie when this remarkable canid

suddenly becomes a neighbor?


5/32

5

In 2000, we initiated a comprehensive ecological study o coyotes in the Chicagometropolitan area, specically Cook County, Illinois, to address these shortcomings.The Cook County Coyote Project, largely unded by the Cook County Animal and

Rabies Control agency, is a unique study comprised o collaborations between theMax McGraw Wildlie Foundation, the Forest Preserve District o Cook County,the Brookeld Zoo, and the Zoological Pathology Program rom the University oIllinois.

As part o this research, we captured coyotes and radio-collared them (Figures 1and 2). As o February 2006, we had captured 253 individuals and radio-collared175, making this the largest urban study o coyotes in the world. We tracked thecoyotes day and night and located the collared coyotes more than 30,000 times.This allowed us to peek into the hidden lives o urban coyotes. We use results romthis unique project to answer common questions regarding coyotes in urban areas.

A large section o this bulletin is dedicated to ecological aspects o coyotes, as wehave ound that a better understanding o how coyotes work is what most othe public wants, and many aspects o coyote ecology have direct managementimplications. Although our study was ocused on Cook County, Illinois, we believethe things we have learned about coyotes and people living together are indicativeo many metropolitan areas in the Midwest and eastern United States.

Figure 1. A captured coyote that has just beentted with a radio-collar and ear tags.

Figure 2. Checking the teeth.

The Cook County, Illinois, Coyote Project


6/32

6

o a captured coyote.


7/32

7

Where Do Coyotes Come From?

Coyotes are native denizens o the plains and southwestern deserts; they originallycame rom open grasslands and deserts but have adjusted quickly to other habitats.Many predators, including coyotes, were initially excluded as cities were developedacross the Midwest. This pattern is true o the Chicago region, where coyotes wereoriginally native to the area but largely disappeared by the late 19th and early 20thcenturies as the area developed into a major metropolitan area. However, duringthe 20th century, coyotes expanded their range eastward to include all o the easternUnited States (Figure 3) and began appearing in large metropolitan areas across

their historic and expanded range.

Ecological Characteristics

of Urban Coyotes

A dramatic change occurred during the last decade o the 20th century, wheninteractions between coyotes and people appeared to increase in Cook County.

The pattern or the Chicago area is probably typical o many other cities. Thenumber o nuisance coyotes removed annually rom the Chicago metropolitanarea increased rom typically less than 20 coyotes in the early 1990s to morethan 350 coyotes each year during the late 1990s (Figure 4). These coyotes wereeither trapped or shot by wildlie control proessionals. The numbers are likelyunderestimates o the actual number o coyotes removed rom the area becausesome control eorts are not reported. The indication is that coyotes in the Chicagoarea, and many other metropolitan areas across the Midwest and eastern UnitedStates, have increased substantially in urban areas over a short period o time.

Pre-European

Current distribution

Figure 3. Natives o the plains and deserts,coyotes have expanded their range eastwardto include all o the eastern United States.


8/32

8

Figure 4. Number ocoyotes trapped asnuisance animals in theChicago region. Courtesyo the Illinois Departmento Natural Resources. Used

with permission.

What Do CoyotesLook Like?

Figure 5. Prole o a coyote, with long snoutand large upright ears.

The coyote is a medium-sized member o the dog amilythat includes wolves and oxes. With its pointed ears, slender

muzzle, and drooping bushy tail, the coyote oten resemblesa German shepherd or collie. Coyotes are usually a grayishbrown with reddish tinges behind the ears and around theace (Figure 5), but coloration can vary rom a silver-gray toblack. The tail usually has a black tip (Figure 6).

Eyes are a striking yellow, with large dark pupils, ratherthan brown like many dogs. While coyotes are capableo interbreeding with domestic dogs, hybrids (known ascoydogs) are generally rare. Most adults weigh between 25and 35 lbs., although their heavy coats oten make themappear larger. There have been suggestions that urbancoyotes are larger than rural coyotes, but we have seen no

evidence o this.

.


9/32

9

Coyote-Dog Hybrids

People oten speculate as to the requency o coydogs in urban settings. Coyotesand dogs are related, and they are biologically capable o producing hybrid litters.Coydogs have been raised in captivity. Genetic surveys o coyotes have rarelydocumented evidence o dogs in the genetic makeup o coyotes, despite domesticdogs and coyotes sharing the continent or the past 9,000 years. Although it ispossible, coydogs in urban settings are unlikely because:

Coyotes are highly seasonal breeders; dogs are not.

Coydog emales have a shited estrus cycle that does not coincide with thecoyote period.

Domestic dog and coydog males do not tend to litters, whereas malecoyotes do.

Coydogs may have lower ertility than either domestic dogs or coyotes.

Figure 6. An adultmale coyote, priorto release. Note theblack-tipped tail andyellow eyes.


10/32

10

How Do I Know I CoyotesAre Present?

Most coyotes are never directly seen by the public, but other clues can be used todetermine i coyotes are in the area.

Howling

Coyotes emit a range o sounds including howls, barks, and whines. Their howlinghas resulted in more myth and mystery than perhaps any aspect o their behavior.Indeed, many people consider the howling o coyotes to be the symbol o the West,or at least a vestige o wilderness.

But, do coyotes in urban areas howl? We have observed that some groups howlrequently, whereas other groups rarely howl. One particular coyote group hada territory that included a re station, and those coyotes regularly howled inresponse to the sirens o emergency vehicles. Other groups were rarely, i ever,heard howling.

Tracks

The presence o tracks and scat (eces) are oten indicators o coyote presence inparks or neighborhoods, but at times these signs can be dicult to distinguishrom those o dogs. Coyote prints are quite similar to medium-sized dogs, withour toes and a heel pad in an oval shape, approximately 2.5 inches in length(Figure 7). Oten, claw marks are only registered or the middle two toes, and notso much or the outer toes (whereas dogs typically have a circular print with clawsor all toes usually registered in prints). Coyotes usually travel in a straight line,whereas dogs shit directions constantly. Anyone who has walked a dog can relateto this.

Figure 7. Comparisono coyote anddomestic dog tracks.

Coyote Length o Stride Coyote Print Domestic Dog Print

2-1/2 to 5-1/2

17-1/2to 26

approx.

2-

1/2


11/32

11

Scats

Scats are the eces deposited by coyotes and other wildlie. Coyote scats are rope-like and typically lled with hair and bones, whereas dog scat is sot with dog ood.Coyotes use scats or communication and so usually deposit scats in the middle o

trails or near the borders o their territories where they are easily seen.

Do Urban Coyotes Form Packs?

Coyotes typically have a highly organized social system, even in urban areas. Thisconsists o packs, or groups o coyotes that apparently deend territories rom othercoyotes. The conventional wisdom is that coyote packs consist o amily members,and the size o these packs can vary greatly across geographic regions and habitattypes. Within a amily group, only the alpha pair (male and emale) will breed, butsubordinates may help raise the litter.

Our observations (during tracking, helicopter fights, and trapping) have revealedthat the coyotes in our study also maintain territories as groups. Group size inprotected habitats is typically ve to six adults in addition to pups born that year.Territories do not overlap, so the coyotes obviously deend these areas rom othergroups. In rural areas, especially where hunting and trapping are common, thegroup may only consist o the alpha pair and the pups.

Although coyotes live in amily groups, they usually travel and hunt alone orin loose pairs. In this way they are dierent rom wolves, which leads to theimpression that coyotes do not orm packs since they are usually seen alone.


12/32

12

In addition to resident groups, the urban population also consists o solitarycoyotes that have let packs and are looking to join groups or create their ownterritories. Between one-third and one-hal o the coyotes we captured each yearwere solitary animals. These solitary coyotes can be either males or emales andare usually young coyotes (six months to two years old) but can also be olderindividuals who have let packs. I a coyote is seen running across a eld, it isimpossible to know i it is a solitary coyote or a member o a pack rom that

sighting.

How Long Do Urban Coyotes Live?

In captivity, coyotes can live 13 to 15 years, but in the wild, most die beorethey reach three years o age. In our study, we ound that coyotes generallyhave a 60 percent chance o surviving one year. This is higher than most ruralstudies where coyotes are exposed to hunting and trapping. Nevertheless,most coyotes die beore reaching their second year. This is because manypups die rom a variety o causes during their rst ew months outside theden. Survival is airly consistent among seasons, even during the winter. The

oldest coyote in our study in an eight-year-old alpha emale (Figure 8).

Figure 9. Road-killed coyote.

More than 70 coyotes have died during thesix-year study. By ar the most requentcause o death or urban coyotes has beencollisions with vehicles (50 to 70 percent odeaths each year) (Figure 9). Other causeso death included shootings, malnutrition,and disease such as sarcoptic mange andparvo virus (our coyotes died romunknown causes) (Figure 10). Mange hasbeen the most common disease-relatedmortality, and all cases occurred post-

2003 (Figure 11).

Few o the diseases we documented incoyotes are o major importance orpeople or pets. Mange was the mostcommon disease to aect survivalin coyotes. Coyote-strain rabies isrestricted to southern Texas, butcoyotes are sometimes inected withrabies rom other species. I a personis bitten by a coyote that is actingaggressive, he or she should be treated

or rabies as a precaution. Anytime aperson is bitten by a coyote, animalcare and human health proessionalsshould be contacted. Urban coyotesmay serve as a reservoir or heartworm; about one-third o theChicago-area coyotes were inectedwith the parasite.

Figure 8. The oldestcoyote in the CookCounty Project, shewas six years old inthis photo and was stillmonitored as an eight-year-old in 2006.


13/32

13

Figure 10. Frequencydistribution or causeso mortality or radio-collared coyotes, 2000-2005. Mange occurred

during 2004-2005.

Figure 11. Radio-collaredcoyotes dead romsarcoptic mange.

Mange

There are dierent types o mange with a range o severity among wildlie species.The type o mange usually associated with coyotes is sarcoptic mange. Some acts:

Mange is caused by a very small mite. The mite burrows into the skin and lays eggs. Severe cases o inection will result in hair loss and wounds rom

scratching. It is transmitted rom one animal to another by contact or sharing dens. It can spread to pets, but that rarely happens, especially with coyotes. Mange mites are rarely a problem or humans.

Vehicle Unkown Disease Shot

Mortality Cause


14/32

14

When Do Coyotes Have Young?

In most years, coyotes typically mate in February. Only the alpha pair mates in apack, but subordinates may help raise the young. In April, ater a 62- to 65-daygestation period, the emale will begin looking or existing dens or dig one hersel.This is the only time coyotes will voluntarily use a den (they usually sleep aboveground in the open or in cover).

It is not uncommon or mothers to move their young rom den to den to keepthem protected, or to re-use the same den in multiple years. Some coyotes selectsecluded areas or their dens, whereas others in more urbanized areas have lessselection and may use dens near buildings or roads. They usually preer someprotective cover at the den, such as bushes or trees, and some type o slope ordrainage (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Coyote den.

Figure 13. Young coyote pup.

Litter sizes oten range rom our to seven pups, depending on ood availability andthe density o the surrounding coyote population (Figure 14). Some litters can bebigger; the largest litter we have ound was 11 pups taken rom one den. Coyoteshave the ability to adjust their litter sizes based on ood abundance and populationdensity. It is dicult or us to get reliable estimates o litter sizes in urban areas, butevery indication suggests that litter sizes were larger than average, which indicatesan abundant ood supply.

Pups stay in the den or about six weeks, and then begin traveling short distanceswith adults. By the end o summer, pups are spending some time away romparents and attempting to hunt on their own or with siblings.

Figure 14. A litter o pups taken rom a den, marked, and then returned.


15/32

15

What Do Urban Coyotes Eat?

Many people believe that urban coyotes primarily eat garbage and pets. Althoughcoyotes are predators, they are also opportunistic and shit their diets to takeadvantage o the most available prey. A graduate student, Paul Morey, analyzed scatcontents at dierent locations within our study area. He analyzed 1,429 scats andound that diet items varied across space and time, which refects the fexible ood

habits o coyotes. The most common ood items were small rodents (42 percent),ruit (23 percent), deer (22 percent), and rabbit (18 percent). (Scats oten havemore than one diet item; thereore, requencies do not necessarily add up to 100percent.) Many other items occurred at lower requencies (Table 1). Voles were themost common small rodent in the diet (Figure 15). Domestic cats were ound inonly 1.3 percent o scats, and human-related ood (garbage, pet ood) was ound inonly 1.9 percent o scats. Apparently the majority o coyotes in our study area donot, in act, rely on pets or garbage or their diets.

Table 1. Frequency of Food Items in the Diets of Coyotes inCook County, Illinois.*

Diet Item Occurrence

Small rodents 42%

White-tailed deer 22%

Fruit 23%

Eastern cottontail 18%

Bird species 13%

Raccoon 8%

Grass 6%

Invertebrates 4%

Human-associated 2%

Muskrat 1%Domestic cat 1%

Unknown 1%

* Based on the contents o 1,429 scats collected during 2000-2002. Some scats contained multiple items; thereore, thepercentages exceed 100%. See Morey 2004.

Figure 15. A vole, oneo the most commondiet items or coyotesand a requent yard andgarden pest.Photo courtesy o CedarCreek Natural HistoryArea, University oMinnesota. Used withpermission.


16/32

16

Where Are Urban Coyotes Found?

Radio-tracking revealed two dierent types o movement patterns among coyotes,and these dierences were related to social behavior. Members o packs had smallterritories averaging three square miles (8 km2), whereas solitary coyotes rangedover much larger areas and had home ranges averaging 25 square miles (62 km2).Home ranges are areas used by animals to meet their daily needs and may overlapwith home ranges o neighbors; territories are also home ranges except that theyare deended rom other individuals and do not overlap.

In the case o coyotes, groups (or packs) deend their territories rom other groups,whereas solitary coyotes do not deend their home ranges. Other studies have alsoound that territory sizes o coyotes decrease with increased urbanization givenadequate ood is available. In general, studies have ound that urban coyotes tendto have smaller territories than rural coyotes. Figure 17 illustrates the pattern opack territories in our study area in 2004, and Figure 18 illustrates the large homeranges o solitary coyotes in relation to the territories in the same year.

Many coyote territories are associated with large parks or orest preserves,which provide an abundance o cover and ood. In these cases, the boundaries

o territories will oten ollow the park boundaries (Figure 19). However, muchto our surprise, other coyotes have been able to establish territories and ormpacks without the benet o large blocks o habitats. This ormation o packsand territories can even occur in downtown areas, i parks or natural areas existin scattered, small patches (Figure 20). In some cases, these are coyotes that havecreated territories in residential areas or complexes o small parks and gol courses.In either case, coyotes manage to deend these territories so that the territories havevery little overlap, which controls their density and spatial arrangement across thelandscape. This is requently called a land-tenure system. We still have much tolearn about how coyotes maintain packs in downtown areas.

Figure 16. A coyotehunting or rodentsunder the snow in a

commercial park.


17/32

17

Approximately 50 percent o the coyotes radio-collared as subadults (one to twoyears o age) or adults have been solitary or at least a portion o the study. Thehome ranges o solitary coyotes span large areas o the metropolitan area, andthey overlap extensively with pack territories as well as other solitary coyotes.Solitary coyotes use a wide variety o habitats and can be ound in virtually anypart o the metropolitan area, even in downtown areas. We have observed somesolitary coyotes nding mates and establishing their own territories, whereas

others eventually disperse and leave the area permanently. In a ew cases, residentadult coyotes have let their territories ater the death o a mate. Moreover, we haveobserved individuals change rom solitary coyotes with large movement patterns tomembers o social groups with small territories (and vice versa).

Given the large areas traversed by coyotes and the number o roads coyotesregularly cross during their activities, it is not surprising that vehicles are the mostcommon cause o death. Some o the roads crossed by coyotes in our study haveaverage trac volumes o more than 100,000 vehicles every 24 hours.

Figure 17. Distributiono coyote packs during2004. The area o the

map encompasses atleast 12 cities over 260square miles. Each colorrepresents the homerange o an alpha maleor emale that representsthe territorial boundary orthe pack. Some territoriesare ragmented as aresult o the computermodel used to estimatethe boundaries, but it isobvious that territories

have only limited overlap.

Figure 18. Distributiono coyote home rangesduring 2004. Light greenlines represent thehome ranges o solitarycoyotes, while the smallercolored areas representthe territorial boundarieso packs (as seen in the

previous gure). OHareInternational Airport islocated in the lower rightcorner. The large homeranges o solitary coyotesoverlap territories opacks as well as homeranges o other solitaryindividuals.


18/32

18

Figure 19. Radio-locations o analpha emale coyoteassociated with thePoplar Creek ForestPreserve during 2000.More than 99 percent o

the radio-locations arelocated within the orestpreserve, and the animal(and pack) rarely let thepark or three years.

Figure 20. Radio-locations (yellow) o analpha emale coyotewith a territory locatedin a downtown area.Her locations refect heruse o small patches o

habitat, but avoidanceo residential areas. Thepurple dots are locationso an adjacent alphaemale rom anotherpack.

As the project has progressed, we have been able to ollow individual coyotesas they change rom solitary coyotes with large movement patterns to socialgroups with small territories (and vice versa). In some cases, these are coyotesthat have created territories in residential areas or complexes o small parks andgol courses.


19/32

19

What Good Are Coyotes?

Unortunately, most o the inormation the public receives about urban coyotescomes rom newspapers or other media that usually ocus on conficts such aspet attacks. However, other aspects o the ecological roles coyotes play in urbanareas are poorly understood. Nevertheless, predators, including coyotes, serveimportant ecological unctions, even in metropolitan areas. Here are a ew exampleso the impacts coyotes have in the Chicago metropolitan area, impacts that someindividuals view as benecial.

Rodents

As we have seen, rodents make up the bulk o the coyote diet in both urban areasand rural areas. Although it has yet to be measured in urban systems, experimentsin rural areas have shown that the removal o coyotes results in a dramatic increasein rodent abundance and a decrease in rodent diversity (this means that only aew species increase and exclude other rodent species). We have observed rodentincreases in areas such as gol courses ollowing coyote removal programs. Thereis also the possibility that coyotes help to control woodchucks. Many areas, such ascemeteries and gol courses, have reported declines in woodchuck abundance oncecoyotes appeared.

White-Tailed Deer

Deer are oten overabundant and dicult to manage in urban areas. Althoughcoyotes rarely take adult deer, they are primary predators o deer awns. Colleaguesrom the Illinois Natural History Survey conducted a awn survival study indierent locations within the Chicago area and ound that coyotes killed 20 percentto 80 percent o the awns in dierent populations. Coyotes cannot reduce deerpopulations because they do not oten take adult deer (in the Midwest), but theymay slow population growth in high-density areas through their predation on awns.

Figure 21. The alphaemale coyote whosedowntown territorylocations are shown inyellow in Figure 20.


20/32

20

Canada Geese

Geese have adapted to urban landscapes much like deer and at times becomeoverabundant and a nuisance. Geese can also be a challenge to manage in urbanareas. A study o geese in the Chicago area ound that the population was growingmuch less rapidly than predicted, and that population growth was limited by nestpredation. By placing modied video cameras at the nests, we were able to identiy

coyotes as the major predator on the nests (Figure 22). Thus, coyotes are serving asa biocontrol or urban geese. Because egg contents are not detected in coyote scat,the extent o coyote predation on goose nests could only be determined by placingcameras at nests. As with deer, coyotes do not take enough adult geese to reducethe population, but they can slow the population increase through egg predation.

Figure 22. Remote photo o a coyote taking a goose eggrom a nest. Coyotes usually fush geese o nests andtake eggs to eat or cache in holes.


21/32

21

Domestic Cat

This is perhaps one o the most controversial aspects to the urbanization o coyotesand oten pits sections o the public against each other. Coyotes kill cats or oodor to remove potential competitors. Those members o the public who own cats orare otherwise interested in their well-being view this unction o coyotes as stronglynegative. However, a positive consequence o coyotes removing peri-domestic

or eral cats is the trickle-down eect. Studies in Caliornia urban areas showedthat coyotes reduced cats in some habitat ragments, which then resulted in anincrease in nesting success or songbirds. Thus, the coyote serves as a top predatorby removing an important smaller predator, the cat, with birds and perhaps otherspecies subsequently increasing in number. More research is needed to determine ithese trickle-down eects also occur in other metropolitan areas.

What Eect Do Coyotes Haveon Other Wildlie?

There has been a recent furry o studies addressing the relationships betweencoyotes and other medium-sized predators such as raccoons, skunks, and oxes.In some cases, these relationships are airly clear, but or others, there is onlyspeculation.

In rural areas, coyotes oten kill red oxes and limit their populations. We know lessabout this relationship in large, metropolitan areas. We did not specically measureox populations during the 1990s in the Chicago area when the coyote populationappeared to increase, but we have conducted recent surveys that indicate bothspecies have declined. This supports the general impressions o most nature centerand park personnel in the area.

Some research has suggested that coyotes may limit medium-sized predatorsthat are smaller than coyotes, including raccoons, striped skunks, and opossums.Although this perception has become quite popular, we have ound little evidencethat coyotes limit raccoons or skunks in urban areas. In act, we have exploredthese relationships in some detail and it appears that coyotes have little impact onmesopredator populations outside o oxes and domestic cats, although we havenot tested the possible impact o coyotes on opossums.

These are a ew examples o the impact coyotes may have in urban areas, some owhich might be considered positive eects. This is by no means a thorough list,and as we learn more about the ecological relationships between coyotes and otherwildlie, the list o examples will increase.


22/32

22

Conflicts Between

Coyotes and HumansFor many reasons, the popular media ocuses on conficts betweencoyotes and people within cities. Even so, most incidents are dicultor the public to interpret and place into the proper perspective.Most people have little idea as to what the appropriate response isto coyote incidents, and inappropriate responses can exacerbate thesituation.

Coyote conficts can range rom relatively benign sightings o theoccasional animal without additional incidents, to pet killings,to the most extreme cases o coyotes attacking people. Coyotesdier rom most other wildlie species in cities in that they canbe considered a nuisance without any evidence o damage, butsimply by being seen. Perhaps because o their role as a largepredator, people are sensitive to the real or perceived threat topets or children. Indeed, most complaints regarding coyotesare that they occur near people, regardless o whether anydamage has occurred.

More extreme are the cases where coyotes attack and,sometimes, kill pets. As coyotes move into metropolitanareas, there is undoubtedly an increase in the loss o ree-ranging domestic cats (Figure 23). Coyotes sometimes take

cats as ood, or simply to remove a possible competingpredator rom their territory (much like they do withoxes). Less commonly, they may attack small dogs or, evenless requently, medium-to-large dogs.

Usually dogs are attacked when they are notaccompanied by people, but in some rare cases, smalldogs have been taken in the presence o an owner. Smalldogs may be taken at any time o year, but attacks onlarger dogs are usually associated with the mating orbreeding season, when coyotes are most territorial.In some cases, small dogs have been taken while thedog was on a lead, or coyotes have jumped ences to

attack a dog in a yard. Most metropolitan areas in theMidwest and eastern United States have reported anapparent increase in the number o attacks on pets.

Figure 23. Outdoor domestic cats are oten taken by coyotes.


23/32

23

Most extreme, and relatively rare, are cases where coyotes attack people. Themajority o cases involve younger children. Most attacks have occurred in theSouthwest, especially southern Caliornia, where coyotes have lived in suburbs ordecades. The only atal case o a coyote attack in recent history occurred in 1981

in a Los Angeles suburb. In Midwestern metropolitan areas where coyotes are arelatively recent phenomenon, coyote attacks on people are still isolated and rare.

Are All Coyotes a Threat to People?

We were surprised to nd so many coyotes living near people in Cook County, andyet relatively ew conficts have been reported. We assumed that with an averageo 350 coyotes removed each year rom the area as nuisances, most urban coyoteswould create problems. In contrast, only ve o 175 radio-collared coyotes havebeen removed as nuisances (as dened by the local community). Apparently, ewcoyotes have become nuisances in Cook County, and it is likely that this is true o

other metropolitan areas. It remains to be seen i conficts will remain relatively rareor i they become more common as coyotes adjust to living with humans.

For perspective, it is worth considering that no documented case o a coyote bitinga human has been reported or Cook County. Contrast that result with domesticdogs, in which Cook County oten records 2,000 to 3,000 dog bites each year(including some atalities). In 2005, there were no recorded bites on people bycoyotes in Cook County, but 3,043 bites were recorded or domestic dogs (datarom Cook County Animal and Rabies Control).

What Creates Nuisance Coyotes?

Those coyotes that became nuisances during our study typically became habituatedthrough eeding by people. In other words, people were eeding wildlie and eitherintentionally, or unintentionally, ed coyotes. Once coyotes associated humanbuildings or yards with ood, they increased daytime activities and thus were seenmore easily by people.

In those areas in southern Caliornia where attacks have been more common,researchers have reported a higher requency o human-related ood in the diet onuisance coyotes. This was indicative o eeding by people, or coyotes seeking oodin garbage. In either case, it is becoming apparent that eeding o coyotes should bediscouraged. A common pattern or many human attacks has been eeding prior tothe incident in many cases intentional eeding.


24/32

24

What Are Some Steps

to Avoid Conficts With Coyotes?

Conficts with coyotes can be avoided by taking simple precautions or by alteringbehaviors to avoid conrontation.

1. Do not feed the coyotes.

Intentional eeding, such as bait stations in yards or parks, should beavoided. However, many people unintentionally eed coyotes by leaving petood or garbage out at night or having large bird eeders (Figure 24 on page26). Coyotes are usually not interested in bird ood, but bird eeders otenattract rodents, especially squirrels, which then attract coyotes. Althoughcoyotes seem to have a natural inclination to avoid human-related ood,this can change when prey populations are low, or i the coyotes are young

and havent yet learned to hunt eectively.

2. Do not let pets run loose.

I coyotes live nearby, do not let pets run loose, especially domestic cats.When hiking in urban parks, keep dogs on leashes.

3. Do not run from a coyote.

When you encounter a coyote, shout or throw something in its direction.

4. Repellents or fencing may help.

Some repellents may work in keeping coyotes out o small areas suchas yards, although these have not been tested thoroughly or coyotes.Repellents may involve remotely activated lights or sound-making devices.Fencing may keep coyotes out o a yard, particularly i it is more than 4 eetin height with a roll bar across the top.

5. Report aggressive, fearless coyotes immediately.

When a coyote ails to exhibit ear o humans or acts aggressively bybarking or growling in the yard or playground, the animal must bereported as soon as possible to the appropriate ocials usually ananimal control ocer or police ocer.


25/32

25

When Should I Be Concerned?

A list o signs indicating an increase in threats rom coyotes is presented here.

However, it is important to note that coyotes are highly variable in their behavior,and this sequence may not always be predictive:

1. Coyotes are rarely or occasionally seen at night, more rarely during duskand dawn. Occasional howling.

Response: Education; prohibit/limit eeding o wildlie.

2. Coyotes are occasionally seen during the day, requently seen at night, anoccasional house cat disappears.

Response: Education; prohibit/limit eeding o wildlie; ree-ranging pets are at risk; use negative stimuli or coyotes shouting,

chasing, throwing objects.

3. Coyotes are requently seen during the day, appearing in yards on anincreasing basis, but they fee when approached by people. Pets in yards areattacked.

Response: Education; prohibit/limit eeding o wildlie;supervise pets; consider a removal program; use negative stimuli orcoyotes shouting, chasing, throwing objects.

4. Coyotes taking pets rom yards, approaching people without ear, actingaggressive (growling, barking) when subjected to negative stimuli, ollowingchildren.

Response: Initiate removal program in conjunction witheducation; prohibit/limit eeding o wildlie; supervise pets; use negativestimuli.


26/32

26

Management OptionsHuman Behavior

Management programs or urban coyotes should begin with public educationand untangling acts rom myths. People should become aware o coyote sign andunderstand the dierences between true threats and coexistence. It is importantto stress that our relationship with coyotes is directly aected by our behavior coyotes react to us, and we can oster mutual respect or a lack o respect throughcues we send to coyotes. Some people are enamored with coyotes. They like seeingthem near their yards and attempt to entice them by baiting them, or they wantto try to tame them. Intentional eeding such as this should be prohibited,otherwise other management solutions will be temporary at best.

People should be discouraged rom inadvertent eeding where coyotes are present.

This includes leaving pet ood outside at night and maintaining large bird eedersthat attract multiple species o wildlie.

Figure 24. A coyoteapproaching bird eedersin a residents backyardduring the aternoon. Thiscoyote became habituatedthrough wildlie eedingat another location butthen became attracted tosquirrels and other rodents

located near the birdeeders.

Where coyotes are more obvious, pets should be supervised. There is little thatcan be done or ree-ranging domestic cats other than keeping the cats inside orremoving coyotes.


27/32

27

Figure 25. A radio-collared coyote scaredrom a nest by a fash

camera. Equipmentusing fashes or soundsmay be eective atscaring coyotes romsmall areas.

Removal

There are instances where coyote habituation is so severe that the coyotes can beconsidered an immediate threat to people, especially children and pets. This iswhen removal is oten warranted. Lethal removal is accomplished either throughtrapping/euthanasia or shooting. Coyotes are dicult to trap or shoot, andthese actions should be undertaken by proessionals, especially in urban areas.Removal eorts should observe state and municipal codes. Fortunately, becauseo habituation, nuisance coyotes are oten easier to capture than non-habituatedindividuals.

Removal programs designed to target specic nuisance coyotes will be moresuccessul than broad removal programs that have a goal o removing a completepopulation o coyotes. It is dicult to capture all coyotes residing in an area, and ascoyotes are removed, they are replaced by solitary ones.

Removal, especially lethal removal, is oten controversial within communities. Thisis especially true when the perceived threat by coyotes is somewhat ambiguousto residents. Removal programs can also be expensive, either or residents ormunicipalities, and traps can occasionally capture pets. For these reasons, as wellas ethical reasons, coyote removal is best employed only ater education has beenattempted or i there is an immediate, and obvious, threat to human saety.

Negative Stimuli

People should be encouraged to act aggressively toward coyotes during encounters,to re-instill a ear o humans in coyotes. In many cases, this involves shouting,waving, or clapping hands, and looking as tall as possible. Residents in somecommunities will chase coyotes by banging pots and pans, or throwing balls orrocks at them. However, this should be done within reason so as not to createconficts that might not otherwise occur by injuring or cornering a coyote thatsimply wants to escape.

Relatively small properties that have coyote visitors may be able to use scare devicesor coyotes, such as electronic sirens and lights, although these have not yet beentested thoroughly. We have successully used game cameras with fashes to repelcoyotes rom yards (Figure 25), but these may not work in every circumstance.


28/32

28

Relocation

One option oten used as a compromise is to remove coyotes with trapping andthen relocate them to a distant site. Although the primary objectives o the CookCounty Coyote Project did not involve relocating coyotes, as a service we didmonitor 12 relocated nuisance (or rehabilitated) coyotes rom the city o Chicagoto document their movements and ates. We ound that no relocated coyotes

remained at their release site despite being located in avorable coyote habitat(usually they were gone within 48 hours or less), and each o them traveled in thegeneral direction o their origin. No coyotes made successul returns, and manywere killed by cars or hunters as they let the release site.

Relocation rarely is eective or any species and particularly so or coyotes.However, many removal programs still relocate coyotes with the understandingthat it will likely result in the death o that individual because relocation is morepalatable to the general public than euthanasia.

The Future

A major nding rom our research is the extent to which coyotes and people areliving together; we captured more coyotes and observed more use o developedareas by coyotes than we expected. People are oten unknowingly in close contactwith coyotes each day, and in the vast majority o cases, the coyotes are still servingas ghosts o the cities, much as they did on the plains. But coyotes are watchingand learning rom us; we infuence their behavior, and it will be our actions thatdetermine what the uture holds or our new neighbors.


29/32

29

Implications

from the Cook CountyCoyote Project

Coyotes are common throughout most o the Chicago region, and ourradio-tracking data demonstrate that people and coyotes coexist on a dailybasis, with people usually unaware o interactions.

As a top predator, coyotes are perorming an important role in the Chicagoregion. Increasing evidence indicates that coyotes assist with controlling deerand Canada goose populations.

Most coyotes are eeding on typical prey items, such as rodents and rabbits,and generally avoid trash. However, wildlie eeding will eventually habituatesome coyotes, leading to conficts.

Coyotes are exposed to a wide range o diseases; however, to date none othem pose a serious human health risk. In general, the coyote populationappears to be relatively healthy.

Eective control programs target nuisance coyotes, rather than targetingthe general coyote population. Coyotes removed through control eorts orother causes are quickly replaced. Successul management programs alsoinclude public education and outside consulting.

Some types o repellents, such as electronic devices employing lights andsound, may be useul or preventive control o coyotes, but more work isneeded to evaluate their eectiveness.


30/32

30

Selected Bibliography

Urban Ecology o Coyotes

Atkinson, K. T., and D. M. Shackleton. 1991. Coyote, Canis latrans, ecology in a

rural-urban environment. Canadian Field-Naturalist105:49-54.Atwood, T. C., and H. P. Weeks Jr. 2003. Spatial home-range overlap and temporalinteraction in eastern coyotes: the infuence o pair types and ragmentation.Canadian Journal of Zoology81: 1589-1597.

Atwood, T. C., H. P. Weeks, and T. M. Gehring. 2004. Spatial ecology o coyotesalong a suburban-to-rural gradient.Journal of Wildlife Management68: 1000-1009.

Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative Sensitivities o Mammalian Carnivores to HabitatFragmentation. Conservation Biology16:488-502.

Fedriani, J. M., T. K. Fuller, and R. M. Sauvajot. 2001. Does availability oanthropogenic ood enhance densities o omnivorous mammals? An example withcoyotes in southern Caliornia. Ecography24: 325-331.

Gibeau, M. L. 1998. Use o urban habitats by coyotes in the vicinity o Ban,Alberta. Urban Ecosystems 2: 129 139.

Gosselink, T. E., T. R. Van Deelen, R. E. Warner, and M. G. Joselyn. 2003. Temporalhabitat partitioning and spatial use o coyotes and red oxes in east central Illinois.

Journal of Wildlife Management67: 90-103.

Grinder, M., and P. R. Krausman. 2001. Morbidity-mortality actors and survival oan urban coyote population in Arizona.Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37: 312-317.

Grinder, M., and P. R. Krausman. 2001. Home range, habitat use, and nocturnalactivity o coyotes in an urban environment.Journal of Wildlife Management65:887-898.

McClennen, N., R. R. Wigglesworth, S. H. Anderson, and D. G. Wachob. 2001.The Eect o Suburban and Agricultural Development on the Activity Patterns oCoyotes (Canis latrans).The American Midland Naturalist146: 27-36.

Morey, P. S. 2004. Landscape use and diet o coyotes, Canis latrans, in the ChicagoMetropolitan Area. M.S. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan. 119 pp.

Quinn, T. 1995. Using public sighting inormation to investigate coyote use o

urban habitat.Journal of Wildlife Management59: 238-245.

Quinn, T. 1997. Coyote (Canis latrans) habitat selection in urban areas o westernWashington via analysis o routine movements.Northwest Science 71: 289-297.

Quinn, T. 1997. Coyote (Canis latrans) ood habits in three urban habitat types owestern Washington.Northwest Science 71: 1-5.


31/32

31

Riley, S. P. D., R. M. Sauvajot, T. K. Fuller, E. C. York, D. E. Kamradt, C. Bromley, andR. K. Wayne. 2003. Eects o urbanization and habitat ragmentation on bobcatsand coyotes in southern Caliornia. Conservation Biology17: 566-576.

Tigas, L. A., D. H. Van Vuren, and R. M. Sauvajot. 2002. Behavioral responseso bobcats and coyotes to habitat ragmentation and corridors in an urbanenvironment. Biological Conservation 108:299-306.

Way, J. G. 2003. Description and possible reasons or an abnormally large groupsize o adult eastern coyotes observed during summer.Northeastern Naturalist10:335-342.

Way, J. G., I. M. Ortega, and E. G. Strauss. 2004. Movement and Activity Patterns oEastern Coyotes in a Coastal, Suburban Environment.Northeastern Naturalist11:237-254.

Coyote Conficts in Urban Areas

Baker, R. O., and R. M. Timm. 1998. Management o conficts between urbancoyotes and humans in southern Caliornia. Pp. 299-312 in R. O. Baker andA. C. Crabb, Eds., Proceedings, 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University ofCalifornia-Davis.

Bounds, D. L., and W. W. Shaw. 1994. Managing coyotes in U.S. national parks:human-coyote interactions.Natural Areas Journal14:280-284.

Carbyn, L. N. 1989. Coyote attacks on children in western North America. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 17:444-446.

Howell, R. G. 1982. The urban coyote problem in Los Angeles County. Pp. 21-23 in R. E. Marsh, Ed., Proceedings, 10th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of

California-Davis.

Timm, R. M., R. O. Baker, J. R. Bennett, and C. C. Coolahan. 2004. Coyote attacks:an increasing suburban problem. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference 69:67-88.

Coyote-Dog Hybrids

Adams, J. R., J. A. Leonard, and L. P. Waits. 2003. Widespread occurrence oa domestic dog mitochondrial DNA haplotype in southeastern U.S. coyotes.

Molecular Ecology12:541-546.

Cook, R. 1952. The coy-dog: hybrid with a uture?Journal of Heredity43:71-73.

Dice, L. R. 1942. A amily o dog-coyote hybrids.Journal of Mammalogy23:186-192.

Kennelly, J. J., and J. D. Roberts. 1969. Fertility o coyote-dog hybrids.Journal ofMammalogy50:830-831.

Mengel, R. M. 1971. A study o dog-coyote hybrids and implications concerninghybridization in canis. Journal of Mammalogy52:316-336.


32/32

Urban Coyote Ecology and ManagementThe Cook County, Illinois, Coyote Project

Documents

Urban Coyote Ecology - Cook County Coyote Project