A Case for Lethal Control of Problem Coyotes
​

A Case for Lethal Control of Problem Coyotes (Vol. 2, Art. 3, November, 2013)

Coyotes, native primarily to areas west of the Mississippi in pre-colonial times, have now extended their range to all the contiguous 48 states.  Historically, coyotes have caused significant damage to agricultural producers in rural areas.  In recent years they’ve become a burgeoning urban/suburban problem as well.

In Colorado metro areas coyotes attack and kill pets almost daily.  Attacks on humans have occurred in at least 20 states and 4 Canadian provinces, including two fatal attacks.  The most recent fatality was a 19-year old Canadian girl in 2009.  There are many documented cases in which a child would’ve been a victim of “serious or fatal injury” if adults had not intervened.  In Colorado, at least 20 humans have been bitten since January, 2010.

The situation poses some obvious questions:  1) Why are we seeing this surge of aggressive coyote behaviors in urban areas? and 2) What can be done to mitigate the problem?

I firmly believe the simple, most practical solution to the problem is the discrete use of lethal control measures, ie targeting and humanely killing problem coyotes.  I’d like to make my case by addressing:  1) what’s causing the problem, 2) alternatives to lethal control, and 3) the practicality of lethal control.

What’s causing the problem?
I believe the answer is rather simple.  First, coyotes are highly adaptable, opportunistic, fairly large predators that exploit their environment and assert their dominance in order to survive.  That’s all they “know to do.”  Second, human development has created superior habitat for them.  Third, we do almost nothing to maintain their fear of humans.  As a result, we have a rapidly expanding population of highly habituated coyotes that don’t know any limits.

Unfortunately, we often inadvertently perpetuate and exacerbate the problem by employing non-lethal techniques to mitigate the problem.  More about that in the next topic.

Mitigation strategies:  non-lethal methods
Proactive neighborhoods, HOA’s, and municipalities with coyote problems are finding that a formal “Coyote Management Plan” can provide a good handle for addressing the problem.  The better plans generally include three phases:  1) education on coexistence, 2) forms of hazing, and lastly, 3) lethal control.  I think coyote management plans are a great idea.  Most of us in wildlife damage control support an integrated approach, one that is firmly rooted in public education, prevention, and non-lethal measures.  But by all means there must be an option for lethal control.  In all likelihood, sooner than later, non-lethal methods will prove ineffective.

The opposite of lethal control to manage urban coyotes is to promote coexistence with coyotes and use non-lethal measures to mitigate problems.  The concept of coexistence begins with the recognition that:  1) coyotes are living among us in close proximity, 2) they aren’t likely to go away, and even that 3) we don’t necessarily want them all to go away.  I accept those realities.

However, I believe there are some issues and shortcomings to the approach that need to be recognized:

1. To expect peaceful coexistence between people and their “coyote neighbors” is both naïve and unrealistic.  Coyotes don’t play by our rules.  They survive by exploiting their environment.  Sooner or later it comes at the expense of people.

2. Promoting coexistence with coyotes fosters tolerance of coyotes which fosters habituation to people which fosters aggression towards pets and people.  At some point it becomes irresponsible.

3. The use of hazing/harassment to re-instill fear of people in coyotes just doesn’t work, at least not well or for long without lethal control.  Why?  Urban coyotes are already habituated; they soon learn that there is no real danger.  Plus, few communities are willing or
able to put forth the intense, consistent effort necessary.

I also have an issue with some of the language employed in promoting coexistence.  For example:

1. The notion that people in highly urban areas are “living in coyote country.”  The message is that this is historic coyote habitat, coyotes have a right to be here, we are the intruders (i.e., “they were here first”), we must accommodate them.  I would argue that at some point human development supplants coyotes and that they are now “living in people country.”  Note:  In some metro areas like Chicago, IL, coyotes were not there first, yet roughly 3000 of them now live there.

2. The premise that what we have is a people problem, not a coyote problem.  This is the argument that people are to blame, that we have created the coyote problem.  I certainly agree that people can greatly exacerbate the problem by being irresponsible with their pets and by feeding coyotes, intentionally or unintentionally.  But coyotes are fully capable of being a problem without any help from us.  They are not without blame.

3. The fact that by definition “coexistence” implies opposition to harming coyotes in any way.  Most proponents of coexistence are strongly opposed to all forms of lethal control.  I’d argue that the option of lethal control is essential.

The practicality of lethal control
I believe lethal control is the best way to reduce human-coyote conflicts in urban areas for several reasons:  1) it’s a proven fact that a dead coyote will never again attack a dog, eat a cat, or threaten a person; 2) lethal control disrupts coyote social structure and re-instills a fear of people, and 3) it is very natural – it’s nature’s way of controlling wildlife populations.

However, there is a lot of opposition to lethal control and, all too often, it is used only as a last resort.  Much of the resistance comes from the simple fact that most Americans love wildlife and don’t want it hurt.  We’d just as soon “live and let live.”  Often we let sentiment override reason, or reality.
Some common arguments against lethal methods (ie foothold trapping, cable restraints and shooting) include:

1. Foothold traps and snares are perceived as “cruel/inhumane devices” and a threat to endangered species.  The fact is that various foothold and snare devices are some of the best tools we have to enhance and protect endangered species (eg predator control, reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone, recapture of wolves, translocation of mountain lions, reintroduction of lynx in Colorado).  Also, technology is improving all the time.  Newer tools meet strict humane standards.

2. Killing coyotes doesn’t work, ie we’ve been killing them for 200 years and now they are more numerous and widespread than ever before.  This point is a gross over-generalization.  The fact is that we have a long history of well-documented, successful control programs, many with very positive cost-benefit ratios.  Much of the success has been in rural, agricultural situations, but there are many recent success stories in urban areas as well.  Two leading researchers analyzed 10 different municipal coyote removal operations in California (1981-2005) and found that in every case aggressive coyote behavior toward pets was dramatically reduced and attacks on people stopped, often for many years.  Their conclusion:  foothold trapping is the most effective tool in removing problem coyotes, stopping aggressive behavior and re-instilling fear of humans.  Shooting is an effective alternative in some situations.

3. If you remove one coyote another will simply take its place.  It’s certainly true that compensatory reproduction and immigration from surrounding areas can compound the problem.  But multiple studies show that not all coyotes are aggressive toward pets or people.  Removal of the dominant, alpha coyotes usually results in dramatic reduction of aggressive behavior in a given area.

4. The claim that killing coyotes in a given area actually increases the number of coyotes in that area.  This is the rather preposterous notion that the more you kill the more you get.  The idea comes from early computer models that suggest compensatory reproduction over-compensates for lethal control.  However, the authors in no way asserted that local coyote removal was futile or inappropriate.

Conclusion
I believe that an option for lethal control of problem coyotes is an essential part of a coyote management plan.  In cases where coyotes are exhibiting bold, aggressive behavior and killing pets, lethal measures will be necessary.  They can be done safely, humanely and cost-effectively.
​
Compiled by:  Claude Oleyar, Equalizer Wildlife Services, Colorado Springs, CO