ArticlePDF Available

Coyote Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada

Authors:
  • The Humane Society of the United States

Abstract and Figures

Coyotes (Canis latrans) have expanded their range across much of North America and are now established in many metropolitan areas. Their presence in urban areas has often elicited concern from the public, although the actual risk that they pose to human populations is unclear. We conducted an analysis of coyote attacks on humans in the United States and Canada, including 142 reported incidents of coyote attacks resulting in 159 victims. Most attacks were classified as predatory (37%) or investigative (22%) in nature. The number of reported attacks was nearly equal between adults and children, although child victims were more (p <.001) prevalent in predatory attacks. Future coyote attacks could be reduced or prevented through modification of human behavior and public education designed to prevent the habituation of coyotes. A standardized reporting system for coyote attack incidents would be beneficial for further investigating characteristics of coyote attack incidents.
Content may be subject to copyright.
419
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14:419–432, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X online
DOI: 10.1080/10871200903055326
UHDW1087-12091533-158XHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 14, No. 6, October 2009: pp. 0–0Human Dimensions of Wildlife Coyote Attacks on Humans in the
United States and Canada
Coyote Attacks on Hu mans in the U. S. and CanadaL. A. White and S. D. Gehrt LYNSEY A. WHITE AND STANLEY D. GEHRT
School of Environmental and Natural Resources, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Coyotes (Canis latrans) have expanded their range across much of North America and
are now established in many metropolitan areas. Their presence in urban areas has
often elicited concern from the public, although the actual risk that they pose to human
populations is unclear. We conducted an analysis of coyote attacks on humans in the
United States and Canada, including 142 reported incidents of coyote attacks resulting
in 159 victims. Most attacks were classified as predatory (37%) or investigative (22%)
in nature. The number of reported attacks was nearly equal between adults and children,
although child victims were more (p < .001) prevalent in predatory attacks. Future
coyote attacks could be reduced or prevented through modification of human behavior
and public education designed to prevent the habituation of coyotes. A standardized
reporting system for coyote attack incidents would be beneficial for further investigating
characteristics of coyote attack incidents.
Keywords attack, carnivore, conflict, coyote, habituation
Conflicts between large carnivores and people have occurred throughout human history,
including attacks by carnivores on people resulting in injury and death. Lion (Panthera
leo) attacks in Tanzania, tiger (Panthera tigris) attacks in the Sundarbans, and brown bear
(Ursus arctos) attacks in North America and Asia are causes of concern and are well
documented (Jackson, 1985; McDougal, 1987; Sanyal, 1987; Löe & Röskaft, 2004;
Packer, Ikanda, Kissui, & Kushnir, 2005). With the extirpation of wolves (Canis lupus),
bears, and other large carnivores from many portions of the United States, however, large
carnivores have been absent in most urban landscapes in the United States until relatively
recently. Today, changing landscapes and the ability of some carnivores to adapt to urban-
ization has led to the establishment of certain medium-to-large carnivores, such as coyotes
(Canis latrans), in urban and suburban areas (Gompper, 2002). Increasingly, humans in
many urban and suburban areas are living in close proximity to coyotes. What is unclear,
however, is the level of threat that these carnivores pose to human health and safety.
This research was supported by Cook County Animal and Rabies Control, directed by Donna
Alexander, and the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation. We thank the many wildlife officials that
assisted in our research, and extend a special thank you to B. Henry, W. Bradford, R. Fink, and
R. Worcester for providing records of attacks. The article benefited from the comments of Jeremy
Bruskotter and two anonymous reviewers. We are especially thankful for the support by Dan
Parmer, deceased.
Address correspondence to Lynsey A. White, School of Environment and Natural Resources,
210 Kottman Hall, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
E-mail: lywhite@gmail.com
420 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
Coyotes have dramatically expanded their range, and are now found in more metro-
politan areas across North America than ever before (Gompper, 2002). In many of these
areas they are the largest (12–15 kg) resident carnivores, and their relatively new presence
often elicits strong reactions from the general public. Sightings of coyotes in residential
neighborhoods and occasional attacks on domestic pets by coyotes are frequently reported
by the media and create or reflect escalating concern from the public. For example, in the
Chicago metropolitan area, which has recently been populated by a growing number of
coyotes (Gehrt, 2004), newspaper articles concerning human–coyote conflicts have
increased over twenty-fold since the 1990s (Figure 1). Perhaps as a result, homeowners in
the Chicago metropolitan area have ranked coyotes as the wildlife species perceived as the
greatest threat to human health and safety (Miller, Campbell, Yeagle, & Colligan, 2001),
despite that there have not been any verified coyote attacks on humans within the Chicago
metropolitan area to date. The situation in the Chicago area is probably typical of most
metropolitan areas with recently established coyote populations.
Previous reviews of coyote attacks on people have suggested that the frequency of
coyote attacks on people has increased in recent years (Baker & Timm, 1998; Timm,
Baker, Bennett, & Coolahan, 2004). Although these reviews have provided useful infor-
mation regarding human–coyote conflicts, they have been limited in scope and analysis.
Past reviews of coyote attacks have focused on attacks in California (Howell, 1982; Baker &
Timm, 1998; Timm et al., 2004) or within national parks in Canada and the northwestern
United States (Carbyn, 1989; Hsu & Hallagan, 1996). These reviews have provided few
analyses of victim demographics, seasonality of attacks, and none concerning the behavior
of both the victims and coyotes prior to, during, and after the attack. Identifying patterns in
the details of coyote attacks is essential for developing effective methods to reduce
human–coyote conflicts.
Figure 1. Annual number of articles published (n = 292) in major Chicago-area newspapers
concerning human–coyote conflicts during 1985–2006.
Coyote Attacks on Humans in the U.S. and Canada 421
In this analysis, we quantified coyote attacks on people to ascertain characteristics of
coyote attacks and to determine victim demographics in relation to types of attacks. We
also categorized the nature of coyote attacks and assessed whether important patterns
occur (regarding seasonality, type of victim, time of day, etc.) among types of attacks. We
believe this contextual approach provides a better understanding of the nature of coyote
attacks on people and sheds more light on the relationship between coyotes and people in
urban areas than currently exists.
Our specific objectives included determining whether attacks varied by season and
type of attack, quantifying victim demographics, and determining possible relationships
between attack types and victim classes. In addition, we determined the types of locations
where attacks took place, and additional circumstances associated with incidents (e.g.,
wildlife feeding).
Methods
Identifying an attack by a coyote can be problematic. The word “attack” is used by the
public, popular press, and wildlife professionals to include a wide variety of interactions
between people and coyotes, including incidents such as a close-range coyote sighting in a
residential neighborhood or the attack of a domestic pet in the presence of its owner (Fox,
2006). Previous reviews of coyote attacks have used broad definitions of the word
“attack” to include incidents in which victims were either not injured by a coyote (e.g.,
stalking) or injured themselves while trying to rescue a pet from a coyote (sensu Baker &
Timm, 1998; Timm et al., 2004). We chose to use a relatively conservative definition of a
coyote attack for the following analyses. We define a coyote attack as an incident between
a coyote and a person that results in a bite to the victim. We recognize that this conservative
definition may exclude aggressive incidents that did not result in a bite, but our experience
is that non-bite incidents are difficult to interpret, particularly when reported by a general
public not familiar with coyote behavior. In these instances, it is difficult to determine the
intent of the coyote and the true threat to the human involved. By only classifying incidents
resulting in a bite to the victim, we feel that we are using the least subjective interpretation of
events regarding the most extreme type of conflict between coyotes and humans.
We initially collected reports of coyote attack incidents by surveying databases of
newspaper articles. We located most reports through the newspaper database LexisNexis
Academic, but also used the databases America’s Newspapers and Newspaper Source. A
Web search (Google News Archives) was effective for identifying the names and location
of additional articles on coyote attacks, especially for older incidents. Newspaper articles
containing coyote attack records that were identified by Google News Archives were then
obtained through LexisNexis Academic or the local library of the newspaper source. We
experimented with a variety of keywords when searching, including: “coyote attack,”
“coyote bite,” and even simply “coyote.” After determining that the phrase “coyote
attack” was most effective for finding incidents resulting in bites, we used this word
combination in all searches.
Although surveys of media accounts have been useful for evaluating wildlife attacks
on people for other predators (e.g. Beier, 1991; Langley, 2005), we acknowledge that the
use of media articles presents limitations. We were limited by the availability of newspaper
articles within newspaper databases (especially among articles older than 10 years), as
well as the amount and quality of details in the articles that we located.
We also collected reports from published literature with listings of coyote attacks in
California (Howell, 1982; Timm et al., 2004) and in national parks in the northwestern
422 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
United States and Canada (Carbyn, 1989; Hsu & Hallagan, 1996). We attempted to verify
media reports not present in professional papers by contacting representatives from state
wildlife agencies and USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services for each state in which a coyote
attack incident was reported. We asked representatives from these agencies to both verify
the details of incident reports that we had located and to provide details of additional
attacks in their state, if possible. In addition, we inquired about the health of the coyote
and the presence of wildlife feeding in the neighborhood of the attack. However, a lack of
standardized record-taking of attack incidents in many states hindered our ability to gather
this information.
For each reported attack incident, we attempted to record the following characteristics:
location, date, time of day (day or night), age and sex of victim, type of area in which the
attack occurred (residence, park, etc.), and results of rabies tests. We classified victims as
children if they were 10 years old or younger. When available, we also recorded descrip-
tions of the activities that victims were engaged in prior to the attack, as well as their
actions during the attack. This information in particular may be helpful for both prevent-
ing attacks in the future and for identifying effective human responses to interactions with
coyotes when they do occur (Löe & Röskaft, 2004; Langley, 2005). Although not used in
analyses, we also recorded severity of the injury because in some cases this helped interpret
the nature of the attack.
To determine if coyote attacks varied in frequency during the year, we pooled data
across years and partitioned the annual period into three seasons corresponding to major
biological phases: breeding (January through April), pup-rearing (May through August),
and dispersal (September through December) seasons (adapted from Laundré & Keller,
1981). Similarly, we partitioned data into diurnal and nocturnal periods to determine if
frequency of attack varied with time of day. We classified incidents as “daytime” attacks
if they occurred during morning or afternoon hours (prior to 1,700 h local time) and as
“nighttime” attacks if they occurred during evening hours (after 1,700 h local time) and
early morning hours prior to sunrise. In some cases, specific times were not reported for
incidents, but were described as occurring during morning or afternoon (classified as daytime)
or evening (classified as nighttime).
For incidents with sufficient information, we classified each attack into 1 of 5 categories:
rabid, predatory, investigative, defensive, and pet-related. These categories were adapted
from Linnell et al. (2002) and were based on factors associated with the actions of both the
victim and coyote prior to and during the attack, as well as the extent and type of injuries
sustained by the victim.
In the rabid category, we only included cases that reported the offending coyote tested
positive for rabies. Thus, this category includes only incidents in which the coyote respon-
sible for the attack was successfully identified, captured, and tested positive for rabies, and
the lab result was reported in the record (or subsequent media articles).
We defined predatory attacks as instances in which a coyote directly and aggressively
pursued and bit a victim, causing multiple or serious injuries (often to the head and/or
neck). These cases were typified by coyotes running straight to the victim and maintaining
an attack even after being discovered by the victim. Cases in which the coyote bit the victim
in the head or neck and attempted to drag them away were classified as predatory attacks.
Predatory attacks also included those in which a victim was attacked by a pair or a pack of
coyotes. In predatory attacks, injuries were usually more severe than other cases and the
victims and/or bystanders had to exert considerable effort to stop the attack.
Investigative attacks were defined as those in which a particular coyote has become
accustomed to people and “tests” the victim as a possible prey source. This category
Coyote Attacks on Humans in the U.S. and Canada 423
includes incidents in which the victim was immobile, either sleeping or resting, and was
bitten on an extremity. Investigative attacks also include incidents in which a coyote
attempted to steal an item from a person (such as a lunch pail or sleeping bag) and was
startled when the victim responded or awakened from sleep. In these instances, injuries
usually consisted of minor wounds to the extremities, and the offending coyote was usually
scared away by the victim or bystanders with little effort.
We defined defensive attacks as those in which a coyote was cornered by a person
(either accidentally or advertently) or was defending pups and/or a den. These attacks
were typically provoked by the victim and injuries to the victim were generally minor.
Pet-related attacks were defined as those in which a person was bitten while a domestic
pet was present. In these instances, the pet may have been involved in attracting the coyote
to the victim. In some cases, the victim may have been trying to rescue a domestic pet
from a coyote attack when he or she was bitten.
When relating victim demographics to type of attack, it was necessary to combine
attack type categories for certain analyses because some categories had small sample
sizes. For these comparisons, we pooled all categories except predatory and rabid
attacks into a non-predatory category, consisting of investigative, defensive, and pet-
related attacks. We excluded attacks in the rabid category from victim comparisons
because the disease alters animal behavior. For analysis, we then compared the
predatory attack category to the pooled non-predatory attack category. This allowed us
to compare the characteristics of attacks driven by a predatory nature with those that
may have precipitated from other factors (such as the protection of pups or attraction to
pets or food sources). Comparisons were made with contingency tests or binomial
tests, with p < .05 considered statistically significant. Given that attack reports
contained variable amounts of information, sample sizes varied by category and level
of analysis.
Results
We collected 46% of the attack reports from newspaper databases. We also retrieved
several records from published articles on coyote attacks: 23% were collected from Timm
et al.’s (2004) review of attacks in California, 1% from Carbyn’s review of attacks in
national parks in Canada and the northwestern United States (Carbyn, 1989), 6% from
Howell’s review of attacks in Los Angeles County (Howell, 1982), and one record from
Hsu and Hallagan’s report of an attack in Yellowstone National Park (1996). We obtained
19% of records from wildlife agencies and 5% from online news sources.
General Attack Patterns
We tabulated 142 reported attack incidents resulting in 159 victims bitten by coyotes
during 1960–2006. Attacks were reported from a wide geographic area, including four
provinces and 14 states (Figure 2). However, most attacks occurred within the western
portion of the United States, with 49% of attacks occurring in California and 13% in
Arizona.
We were able to classify 108 of 142 (76%) reported attack incidents by behavioral
category (Figure 3). The greatest number of attacks was classified as predatory (37%),
followed by investigative (22%). Attacks were classified as pet-related in 6% of the cases
and defensive in 4% of the cases. In 7% of attack incidents the coyote was verified as
rabid.
424 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of coyote attacks (n = 142) in the United States and Canada
during 1960–2006.
Figure 3. Percentage of coyote attacks on people (n = 142) in the United States and Canada
classified by attack category during 1960–2006.
Coyote Attacks on Humans in the U.S. and Canada 425
Demographics of Victims
One hundred fifty-nine victims were associated with the 142 reported attack incidents, of
which it was possible to assign age groups to 145. Overall, there were a slightly higher
number of coyote attacks on children than adults. In attacks classified as predatory, how-
ever, the majority of victims were children and significantly (c2 = 43.15, df = 1, p < .001)
more children were associated with predatory than non-predatory attacks (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Distribution of coyote attack victims during 1960–2006 in the United States and Canada,
by gender (n = 115) and age group (n = 120) of victim. Attacks were classified into predatory and
non-predatory types, and victims 10 years old or younger were classified as children.
426 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
In each of the other categories of attacks, adults were represented more often than children,
especially in investigative attacks (Table 1).
Overall, there was no difference (z = 0.167, p = .87) from an even sex ratio
among victims (Figure 4). Although there was a trend for a higher frequency of
adult males as victims compared to adult females (Table 1), this was not significant
(z = 0.28, p = .78). Among the predatory and non-predatory categories, there also
was no significant difference in sex ratios for adults (Fisher’s exact test p = .72). For child
victims, there was no difference from an even sex ratio both overall (z = 0.26, p = .80)
and between the predatory and non-predatory attack categories (c2 = 0.07, df = 1,
p= .78).
Seasonality of Attacks
We were able to determine season for 139 reported incidents, of which 23% occurred
during coyote breeding season, 45% during the pup rearing season, and 32% during the
dispersal season. The seasonal variation in attacks was non-significant (c2 = 4.94, df = 2,
p= .08).
Classified attacks appeared to vary among categories in seasonality (Table 2),
although small sample sizes precluded analyses. There was no clear pattern in the
frequency of attacks per month for attacks classified as rabid, defensive, or pet-related.
Predatory and non-predatory attacks had similar (c2 = 1.82, df = 2, p = .40) seasonal
patterns of occurrence, with increases during the pup-rearing season (Figure 5). Although
the peak of occurrence during the pup-rearing season was most evident by the predatory
category, this was non-significant (c2 = 3.28, df = 2, p = .19).
Temporal Pattern of Attacks
For attack incidents in which the time of attack was reported (n = 80), there was no difference
(z = 0.224; p = .82) in frequency between daytime (50%) and nighttime (50 %) periods.
Similarly, there was no difference (c2 = 0 .16, df = 1, p = .69) in time of day between
predatory and non-predatory attacks.
Table 1
Victim demographics by attack category for coyote attacks on humans (n = 159) during
1960–2006 in the United States and Canada. Victims 10 years old or younger were
classified as children
Demographic characteristics of victims
Attack types
Adult
male
Adult
female
Adult
unknown
sex
Child
male
Child
female
Child
unknown
sex
Male
unknown
age
Female
unknown
age Unknown Total
Defensive31010000 05
Investigative 13 7 1 3 6 0 1 0 1 32
Pet-related 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8
Predatory 7 3 0 22 25 5 1 0 0 63
Rabid 93111000 015
Unknown 6 8 3 10 5 1 0 1 2 36
Coyote Attacks on Humans in the U.S. and Canada 427
Location of Attacks
Information on the type of attack site was available for 121 of the attack incidents. Most of
these incidents (70%) occurred on or immediately adjacent to the victim’s residence. One
quarter of attacks (25%) occurred in parks. Smaller numbers of attacks occurred in
commercial areas (such as restaurant parking lots) (4%) and golf courses (1%).
Activities of Victims Prior to Attack
For 111 of the attack incidents, information regarding the activity of the victim preceding
the attack was available. Most commonly, attack victims were engaged in some type of
Table 2
Seasonal distribution of coyote attacks (n = 142) in the United States and Canada
during 1960–2006, partitioned by attack category. The breeding season includes
January–April, pup-rearing season includes May–August, and dispersal season
includes September–December
Biological seasons
Attack types Breeding Pup rearing Dispersal Unknown Total
Defensive 3 2 0 0 5
Investigative 7 12 12 1 32
Pet-related 2 4 1 1 8
Predatory 11 26 15 1 53
Rabid 4 2 4 0 10
Unknown 3 16 13 2 34
Figure 5. Seasonal frequencies of coyote attacks on people (n = 108) in the United States and
Canada during 1960–2006, by attack type.
428 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
recreational activity (47%). Examples of these recreational activities include: jogging,
hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, or playing golf. The majority of child victims (75%)
were playing outside in their yard or driveway prior to the attack. The next most common
type of activity of victims prior to attack was resting or sleeping outside (19%). Many of
these victims were sleeping outside in sleeping bags at the time of attack or were sitting in
a chair outside their residence. Other types of activities prior to attack included: trying to
save a pet from a coyote attack (6%), performing yard work or utility work (6%), cooking
or eating outside (5%), standing outside a commercial area (4%), hunting (2%), or walking a
pet (2%). One victim (1%) was feeding a coyote prior to being attacked.
Actions of Victims or Bystanders during Attack
In half (53%) of the reported attack incidents, the actions of the victim and/or bystanders
used to counter the offending coyote were detailed. In two-thirds (65%) of these, the
victim was able to escape from the attack without using physical force on the coyote.
These victims and/or bystanders stopped the attack by running away, yelling, and/or
throwing objects at the coyote. Physical force was necessary to stop the attack in 35% of
the cases. Victims and/or bystanders hit or kicked the coyote, restrained it until further
help arrived, used mace, or shot the coyote.
Effect of Feeding
It was reported in 42 of the 142 (30%) incidents that coyotes were either intentionally or
accidentally being fed by residents near the attack site prior to the incident. This figure
includes the incident in which a victim was hand-feeding the coyote that subsequently bit him.
Discussion
Victim Demographics and Attack Types
A previous review of coyote attacks on humans reported children as the primary victims
of the most serious coyote attacks (Carbyn, 1989). Although we did not find a significant
difference in the age group of victims overall, we did find that children are the primary targets
of predatory attacks, which result in the most serious injuries. Coyotes may view small
children as potential prey (Carbyn, 1989). It has also been suggested that coyotes may be
stimulated to attack children that are running or engaged in playful behavior (Lehner, 1976),
which is supported by reports in our study of the activities of children preceding attacks; the
majority of children were outside playing when they were attacked by a coyote.
The relative frequency of predatory attacks that we located may have been affected by
our use of media articles for attack accounts. Attacks of a more serious nature, especially
involving children, may be more likely to be reported and appear in the media.
Role of Rabies in Attacks
Previous reviews of coyote attacks have not identified attacks by rabid coyotes (Carbyn,
1989; Baker & Timm, 1998; Timm et al., 2004). We recorded 10 cases of confirmed
rabid coyote attacks, which resulted in 15 bite victims. This is possibly an underestimate
of the true number of victims of rabid coyote attacks, as it only includes cases in which
the offending coyote was identified, captured, and tested positive for rabies. Other
Coyote Attacks on Humans in the U.S. and Canada 429
victims may have been bitten by rabid coyotes that were not successfully trapped and
tested. Nonetheless, it does not appear that rabies plays a critical role in the occurrence of
coyote attacks on humans at this time. This is in contrast to wolf attacks in North America,
Europe, and Asia, for which rabies appears to be a major factor (Linnell et al., 2002).
Seasonality of Attacks
We suspect that more investigative and predatory attacks occurred during spring and summer
than during colder months because victims were outside engaged in recreational activities,
sleeping, or resting. Attacks on children playing outside may have also been more
frequent during the summer because they were on vacation from school.
Role of Wildlife Feeding and Habituation in Attacks
We suspect that the number of cases in which coyotes were being fed (either intentionally
or accidentally) was higher than that reflected in the media and attack reports we located.
This is partially supported by the large number of attacks that occurred during daytime
hours and on residential property, suggesting that the offending coyotes were habituated to
humans. Studies of coyote ecology in metropolitan areas have reported a preference by
coyotes for natural or forested areas over urban or otherwise disturbed areas (Quinn, 1997;
Atwood et al., 2004) and a shift to nocturnal activity in urbanized areas of high human use
(Grinder & Krausman, 2001; McClennen, Wigglesworth, Anderson, & Wachob, 2001;
Riley et al., 2003; Atwood, Weeks, & Gehring, 2004). This nocturnal behavior of coyotes
has generally been attributed to an effort to avoid confrontations with people (Atwood
et al., 2004; George & Crooks, 2006; Grinder & Krausman, 2001; Kitchen, Gese, &
Schauster, 2000; McClennen et al., 2001). The large number of attacks occurring within
daytime hours suggests that in some cases the offending coyotes were no longer avoiding
humans, and may have become habituated to human activity, likely due to intentional or
accidental wildlife feeding.
Although there is little in the literature attributing wildlife feeding to incidents of
coyote attacks on people, analyses of coyote diet have been beneficial for revealing links
between wildlife feeding and human–coyote conflicts. For example, in the Chicago metro-
politan area, an area with a large population of coyotes but no incidents of coyote attacks
to date, human-related food was found in less than 2% of coyote scats analyzed (Morey,
Gese, & Gehrt, 2007). In contrast, a study in southern California, an area with the highest
concentration of coyote attack incidents in the United States, found that human-related
food constituted as much as 25% of coyote diets in areas with high human population den-
sities (Fedriani, Fuller, & Sauvajot, 2001). A study of human–coyote conflicts in U.S.
national parks also found that aggressive behavior by coyotes was exhibited more often in
areas where park visitors were feeding coyotes than in areas where wildlife feeding
occurred less frequently (Bounds & Shaw, 1994). Finally, wildlife feeding was implicated
in the habituation of coyotes during a radiotelemetry study of coyotes in the Chicago
metropolitan area (Gehrt, 2006).
The habituation of coyotes to humans has been likened to the habituation of bears
to humans (Carbyn, 1989; Timm et al., 2004) which, in the case of bears, has been
caused by feeding of bears by people (Leopold, 1970; Cole, 1971, 1973). This includes both
intentional and accidental wildlife feeding. Restricting wildlife feeding has been found to be
the most important step for resolving human–bear conflicts (McCullough, 1982), and is
likely an important step for reducing human–coyote conflicts as well.
430 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
Prevention of Future Attacks
Homeowners likely play a large role in preventing future coyote attacks, as the majority of
attacks that we found took place immediately outside the residences of victims. Home-
owners have control over several factors in their own yards that could potentially attract
nuisance coyotes and increase the risk of attacks in their neighborhood. These factors
include leaving food outside for pets, intentionally feeding wildlife, and leaving pets outside
unattended (especially cats and small dogs) (Timm et al., 2004).
We also located several accounts of coyote attacks in parks, playgrounds, and
campsites. At these locations, a ban on feeding coyotes and other wildlife is particularly
important for preventing future attacks (Carbyn, 1989; Fox, 2006). Enforcement of a leash
law for pets could also help to prevent pet-related attacks (Bounds & Shaw, 1994). Several
attacks occurred while campers slept in sleeping bags on the open ground; sleeping in
closed tents could help to prevent these types of attacks, especially in camp grounds or
parks with a known history of wildlife feeding. Caution should be encouraged in parks and
recreational areas where coyotes are frequently sighted, especially when walking a pet
(Timm et al., 2004).
Educational programs, especially in areas reporting coyote sightings, are important
for informing the public of the relationship between wildlife feeding and coyote attacks
(Fox, 2006; Gehrt, 2006). These programs should stress the importance of properly storing
household refuse, not leaving pet food outdoors, and securing small domestic pets (Baker
& Timm, 1998; Timm et al., 2004). These programs should also inform the public about
the appropriate behavior to exhibit when encountering a habituated coyote. Waving one’s
arms, yelling, and throwing objects may help to reinstill the avoidance behavior typically
lacking in a habituated coyote (Gehrt, 2006). For some habituated coyotes, however, control
programs may be necessary.
Need for Standardized Reporting of Coyote Attacks
During our research, we discovered that many state wildlife agencies do not maintain
records of coyote attacks on people. Of those that do maintain records, they are often
inaccessible and incomplete. More importantly, the details captured in these records are
largely inconsistent among states and regions. This lack of a standardized reporting system
has also been identified in reviews of attacks by various large mammalian carnivores (Löe &
Röskaft, 2004) and alligators (Langley, 2005). Although we have revealed useful patterns
in the characteristics of coyote attacks, our results must be considered with caution given
the limited availability of attack reports and the details in these reports. A standardized
reporting program of coyote attacks would be beneficial for accurately assessing charac-
teristics of coyote attacks throughout the United States and Canada. Because coyote
attacks are infrequent resulting in small sample sizes, standardizing information at the
national level would be most beneficial.
We suggest reports of coyote attacks should include several details concerning both
the coyote and the victim. The following details should be included: date, time, location,
number of victims, age and sex of victim(s), the activity of the victim(s) prior to the attack,
the activity of the coyote(s) prior to the attack, a description of the confrontation, the
action that the victim(s) or bystander(s) took to ward off the offending coyote(s), injuries
sustained from the attack, and whether a domestic pet was involved in the incident. Efforts
should be made to determine that the offending animal was indeed a coyote and to determine
if wildlife feeding (accidental or intentional) was occurring near the site prior to the attack.
Coyote Attacks on Humans in the U.S. and Canada 431
It is also imperative that the offending coyote, if captured and euthanized, is tested for
rabies and that a necropsy is performed. Information obtained from necropsies is essential
for determining the health of the coyote and can reveal if the diet of the coyote included
food from human sources. This information should be included in attack reports and will
be valuable for further investigating the relationship between wildlife feeding, habituation,
and coyote attacks on people in the future.
References
Atwood, T. C., Weeks, H. P., & Gehring, T. M. (2004). Spatial ecology of coyotes along a suburban-to-rural
gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68, 1000–1009.
Baker, R. O., & Timm, R. M. (1998). Management of conflicts between urban coyotes and humans
in southern California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 18, 299–312.
Beier, P. (1991). Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
19, 403–412.
Bounds, D. L., & Shaw, W. W. (1994). Managing coyotes in U.S. national parks: Human-coyote
interactions. Natural Areas Journal, 14, 280–284.
Carbyn, L. N. (1989). Coyote attacks on children in western North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin,
17, 444–446.
Cole, G. F. (1971). Preservation and management of grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park.
BioScience, 21, 858–864.
Cole, G. F. (1973). Management involving grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park 1970–1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Natural Resources Report, 7.
Fedriani, J. M., Fuller, T. K., & Sauvajot, R. M. (2001). Does availability of anthropogenic food
enhance densities of omnivorous mammals? An example with coyotes in southern California.
Ecography, 24, 325–331.
Fox, C. H. (2006). Coyote and humans: Can we coexist? Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference,
22, 287–293.
George, S. L., & Crooks, K. R. (2006). Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature
reserve. Biological Conservation, 133, 107–117.
Gehrt, S. D. (2004). Ecology and management of striped skunks, raccoons, and coyotes in urban
landscapes. In N. Fascione, A. Delach, & M. Smith (Eds.), People and predators: From conflict
to coexistence (pp. 81–104). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gehrt, S. D. (2006). Urban coyote ecology and management: The Cook County, Illinois, coyote
project. Ohio State University Extension Bulletin, 929.
Gompper, M. E. (2002). Top carnivores in the suburbs? Ecological and conservation issues raised by
colonization of north-eastern North America by coyotes. Bioscience, 52, 185–190.
Grinder, M. I., & Krausman, P. R. (2001). Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes
in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65, 887–898.
Howell, R. G. (1982). The urban coyote problem in Los Angeles County. Proceedings of the Vertebrate
Pest Conference, 10, 21–23.
Hsu, S. S., & Hallagan, L. F. (1996). Case report of a coyote attack in Yellowstone National Park.
Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 2, 170–172.
Jackson, P. (1985). Deaths as a result of tiger attacks. Cat News, 2, 9.
Kitchen, A. M., Gese, E. M., & Schauster, E. R. (2000). Changes in coyote activity patterns due to
reduced exposure to human persecution. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78, 853–857.
Langley, R. L. (2005). Alligator attacks on humans in the United States. Wilderness and Environmental
Medicine, 16, 119–124.
Laundré, J. W., & Keller, B. L. (1981). Home range use by coyotes in Idaho. Animal Behaviour, 29,
449–461.
Lehner, P. N. (1976). Coyote behavior: Implications for management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 4,
120–126.
432 L. A. White and S. D. Gehrt
Leopold, A. S. (1970). Weaning grizzly bears. Natural History, 79, 94–101.
Linnell, J. D. C., Andersen, R., Andersone, Z., Balciauskas, L., Blanco, J. C., Boitani, L. et al.
(2002). The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks on humans. Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning
Oppdragsmelding, 731, 1–65.
Löe, J., & Röskaft, E. (2004). Large carnivores and human safety: A review. Ambio, 33, 283–288.
McClennen, N., Wigglesworth, R. R., Anderson, S. H., & Wachob, D. G. (2001). The effect of
suburban and agricultural development on the activities of coyotes (Canis latrans). American
Midland Naturalist, 146, 27–36.
McCullough, D. R. (1982). Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 10, 27–33.
McDougal, C. (1987). The man-eating tiger in geographical and historical perspective. In R. L. Tilson
& U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the world: The biology, biopolitics, management, and conservation
of an endangered species (pp. 425–448). Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Press.
Miller, C. A., Campbell, L. K., Yeagle, J. A., & Colligan, C. B. (2001). Attitudes of homeowners in
the greater Chicago Metropolitan Region toward nuisance wildlife. Human dimensions program
report, SR-00-02. Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.
Morey, P. S., Gese, E. M., & Gehrt, S. ( 2007). Spatial and temporal variation in the diet of coyotes
in the Chicago metropolitan area. American Midland Naturalist, 158, 147–161.
Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B., & Kushnir, H. (2005). Lion attacks on humans in Tanzania.
Nature, 436, 927–928.
Quinn, T. (1997). Coyote (Canis latrans) habitat selection in urban areas of western Washington via
analysis of routine movements. Northwest Science, 71, 289–297.
Riley, S. P. D., Savajot, R. M., Fuller, T. K., York, E. C., Kamradt, D. A., Bromely, C. et al. (2003).
Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California.
Conservation Biology, 17, 566–576.
Sanyal, P. (1987). Managing the man-eaters in the Sunderban tiger reserve in India: A case study. In
R. L. Tilsan & U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the world: The biology, biopolitics, management, and
conservation of an endangered species (pp. 427–434). Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Press.
Timm, R. M., Baker, R. O., Bennett, J. R., & Coolahan, C. C. (2004). Coyote attacks: An increasing
suburban problem. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,
69, 67–88.
... Species specific worldwide syntheses have for example been made for brown bears (Ursus arctos), with 664 attacks recorded between 2000 and 2015 [6], or wolves (Canis lupus), with 489 attacks recorded between 2002 and 2020, of which 380 were rabid attacks [32]. Lions, leopards, and tigers (Panthera species) are also regionally reported as causing human injury or death (e.g., [1,40]) and coyotes (Canis latrans) are reported to cause mainly bite wounds [51]. The context of wildlife attacks on people includes situations of human leisure or livelihood activities [6,7] in forests, farmlands, urban settings, or even in homes [1,6,51]. ...
... Lions, leopards, and tigers (Panthera species) are also regionally reported as causing human injury or death (e.g., [1,40]) and coyotes (Canis latrans) are reported to cause mainly bite wounds [51]. The context of wildlife attacks on people includes situations of human leisure or livelihood activities [6,7] in forests, farmlands, urban settings, or even in homes [1,6,51]. ...
... It is also essential to support sustainable conservation efforts, as increasing human health and safety concerns would likely compromise the support for future carnivore populations [48]. To avoid attacks on humans caused by large carnivores, various interventions are available intended to alter the behavior of the wild animals, or the behavior of humans near wildlife [51], or both. Interventions intended to temporarily alter animal behavior include, but are not limited to, more technical interventions such as scaring devices, deterrents, barriers, and fences (e.g., [14,19,26,28]). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Instances of attacks from large carnivores that lead to human injury or death are increasingly reported worldwide. Ensuring human safety when people and carnivores co-occur is central to minimizing human suffering but is also essential to support sustainable carnivore conservation. Various interventions are available intended to alter either the behavior of large carnivores or people, in order to reduce the likelihood of a risky encounter and an attack. Collated evidence on best practices is still lacking, and this protocol outlines a systematic review of evidence for intervention effectiveness to reduce the risk or severity of direct attacks on humans by large carnivores. Specifically, the review seeks to answer the question: How effective are evaluated interventions in reducing large carnivore attacks on people? Methods The bibliographic databases Zoological Record, BIOSIS Citation Index, and Scopus will be searched using a predefined search string. Grey literature will be requested through professional networks, contacts with relevant organizations, and searching selected websites. All returned titles and abstracts will be manually screened using Rayyan.ai. For inclusion, studies should describe the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) of the review research question and be written in English, Spanish, or Swedish. Review papers will be excluded. All records of data coding and extraction are documented in a purposely developed, and priorly piloted, data sheet. Critical appraisal of study validity will be done according to the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool prototype version 0.3. Review outcomes will be synthesized in a narrative, and if possible, a quantitative synthesis. The narrative synthesis will describe in text the carnivore population (species, location), context (target object, intervention model), as well as the design and reported results of each study. The quantitative synthesis will include a summary statistic, preferably logarithmic risk ratio, calculated for each original study. A forest plot will be created to visualize study outcomes, as well as judgments of critical appraisal. Provided that enough data is available and that it complies with its assumptions, a meta-regression analysis will be undertaken using metafor package for R software.
... Nevertheless, habituation tain their reproductive success [11]. Nevertheless, habituation does not always come with positive consequences, such as does not always come with positive consequences, such as human-wildlife conflict [14,15]. Regardless of the benefit and human-wildlife conflict [14,15]. ...
... Nevertheless, habituation does not always come with positive consequences, such as does not always come with positive consequences, such as human-wildlife conflict [14,15]. Regardless of the benefit and human-wildlife conflict [14,15]. Regardless of the benefit and cost to wildlife, habituation sometimes becomes a desirable cost to wildlife, habituation sometimes becomes a desirable result in wildlife tourism practices [1,13,16]. ...
... Human-wildlife interaction frequently results in conflict, such as an attack on humans, and the likelihood is higher in habituated wildlife [15,35,36]. Several cases of Komodo attack have been reported around the study site, but they have not been properly documented. ...
Article
Full-text available
It has been recognized in many studies that wildlife tourism practices might generate a negative impact on wildlife, particularly during the reproductive period. Some wildlife may lower their sensitivity towards tourist presence, for instance in Komodo. Understanding to what extenthabituation occurs in Komodo would be necessary for tourism management in Komodo National Park (KNP). Therefore, this study aimed to identify the response of Komodo to tourist presence during mating and nesting activities. The observation was conducted in Loh Buaya, which is one of the tourism sites in KNP. Komodo’s responses were divided into (1) avoidance; (2) neutral; and (3) aggressive under categorized stimulus: tourist number (i.e., < 5 persons; 5-10 persons; and > 10 persons) and distance (i.e., < 5 m; 5-10 m; and > 10 m). Correlation analysis was performed to identify any influences on mating and nesting activities. Our results revealed that Komodo inhabiting tourism facilities havebeen habituated to tourist presence. Different tourist frequencies did not influence Komodo mating activities (r(20)= 0.036, p=0.873), the nest preparing activity (i.e., digging proportion; r(22)= 0.054, p=0.803) and the guarding activity (i.e., nesting proportion; r(22)= 0.314, p=0.135).Nevertheless, our results indicated possible impacts due to tourism activities and its supporting facilities, such as dominated mating pairs, threats to female reproductive success, and human-Komodo conflicts. Therefore, habituation evi- dence must be carefully considered in order todevelop more corresponding strategies and achieve sustainable tourism practices.
... Human-wildlife conflict is a major impediment to the conservation of large predators (White and Gehrt 2009;Barlow et al. 2010;van Eeden et al. 2018). There are increasing efforts to minimize conflict and increase coexistence because of the negative effects of conflict on wildlife and people (Oriol-Cotterill et al. 2015;Nyhus 2016;Morehouse et al. 2020). ...
... These challenges have led to an interest in strategies that manipulate carnivore's fear of humans to manage human-wildlife conflicts (Martínez-Abraín et al. 2019;Gaynor et al. 2021). Fear of humans often affects predator behaviour similarly to their fear of other predators (Oriol-Cotterill et al. 2015;Smith et al. 2015;Suraci et al. 2019), but reduced fear of humans can result in negative outcomes for humans and wildlife (White and Gehrt 2009;Bonnell and Breck 2017). One appealing approach to manage predators in conflictprone areas is using aversive conditioning to increase fear of humans (e.g., Beckmann et al. 2004 -black bears Ursus americanus; Bonnell an Breck 2017 -coyotes Canis latrans; Winter et al. 2024 -mountain lions Puma concolor). ...
Article
Full-text available
Human-wildlife conflict creates negative outcomes for both people and wildlife by threatening human safety and property and leading to the persecution of wildlife. Conflict with large carnivores results in real and perceived threats to human interests and safety, and thus a range of management tools is necessary to mitigate conflict and facilitate coexistence between humans and carnivores. We investigated hazing with trained hounds (Canis familiaris) as an aversive conditioning tool to affect mountain lion (Puma concolor) behaviour. We conducted repeated human approach trials with GPS-collared mountain lions divided into treatment (n = 39) and control groups (n = 12). Trials consisted of approaching mountain lions while broadcasting human voices over a speaker, and then measuring the flight initiation distance (FID), defined as the distance between the approaching researcher and the mountain lion when the mountain lion began to move, and the distance moved by mountain lions in response to the approach. Immediately after the approach trial was completed, we hazed treatment mountain lions through pursuit with trained hounds, while control animals received no hazing. The mean ± SE FID of treatment animals increased from 75 ± 16 m during trial 1 to 128 ± 12 m during trial 4. The mean total distance moved doubled from 278 ± 39 m to 582 ± 68 m from trials 1 to 4, indicating that pursuit with hounds can alter mountain lion response to a benign stimulus. In contrast, control animals displayed a habituation response, allowing humans to approach closer during subsequent trials (trial 1 mean: 68 ± 16 m; trial 4 mean 35 ± 12 m). However, control animals showed high variability in distance moved with no significant change from trial 1 (297 ± 60 m) to trial 4 (442 ± 135 m). These results suggest that hazing with trained hounds can be used to displace mountain lions and perhaps increase their sensitivity to human approach. Habituated animals in other carnivore species (e.g., coyote (Canis latrans)) are often more prone to conflict, and thus limiting habituation may help reduce conflict, especially in areas where mountain lions frequently encounter humans such as the wildland-urban interface.
... It is interesting that these two mountain lions were the most nocturnal and apparently the most sensitized to humans, as we might have expected the opposite pattern, where animals in highly urban areas would become more habituated to humans (Uchida et al., 2019) and be less likely to shift their diel activity. However, habituation by carnivores may increase potential for conflict with humans and mortality risk (White and Gehrt, 2009;Shimozuru et al., 2020). Hence, the retention of fear of humans by urban carnivores and individual abilities to alter activities in time (this study) or space to avoid humans (Reilly et al., 2022) may be an important adaptive response to enable co-occurrence with humans. ...
... Beyond these ecological effects, coyotes come into conflict with humans due to real and perceived threats of harm to livestock, pets and humans themselves (Berger 2006). For example, White and Gehrt (2009) reported 142 attacks on humans and Alexander and Quinn (2011) reported 91 attacks on dogs Canis familiaris including 38 mortalities. One strategy to reduce these conflicts has been to enact liberal hunting and trapping regulations aimed at reducing coyote abundance (Berger 2006). ...
Article
Full-text available
Variation in animal abundance is shaped by scale‐dependent habitat, competition, and anthropogenic influences. Coyotes Canis latrans have dramatically increased in abundance while expanding their range over the past 100 years. Management goals typically seek to lower coyote populations to reduce their threats to humans, pets, livestock and sensitive prey. Despite their outsized ecological and social roles in the Americas, the factors affecting coyote abundance across their range remain unclear. We fit Royle–Nichols abundance models at two spatial scales in a Bayesian hierarchical framework to three years of data from 4587 camera trap sites arranged in 254 arrays across the contiguous USA to assess how habitat, large carnivores, anthropogenic development and hunting regulations affect coyote abundance. Coyote abundance was highest in southwestern USA and lowest in the northeast. Abundance responded to some factors as expected, including positive (soft mast, agriculture, grass/shrub habitat, urban–natural edge) and negative (latitude and forest cover) relationships. Colonization date had a negative relationship, suggesting coyote populations have not reached carrying capacity in recently colonized regions. Several relationships were scale‐dependent, including urban development, which was negative at local (100‐m) scales but positive at larger (5‐km) scales. Large carnivore effects were habitat‐dependent, with sometimes opposing relationships manifesting across variation in forest cover and urban development. Coyote abundance was higher where human hunting was permitted, and this relationship was strongest at local scales. These results, including a national map of coyote abundance, update ecological understanding of coyotes and can inform coyote management at local and landscape scales. These findings expand results from local studies suggesting that directly hunting coyotes does not decrease their abundance and may actually increase it. Ongoing large carnivore recoveries globally will likely affect subordinate carnivore abundance, but not in universally negative ways, and our work demonstrates how such effects can be habitat and scale dependent.
... This finding is consistent with other studies' focus on perceived risk as a major influence on human-coyote interactions (Alexander & Quinn, 2012;Sponarski, Miller, et al., 2016). The non-material disservices mentioned in our sample contrasts with the preoccupation with physical harm and loss of property in research (White & Gehrt, 2009) and popular press coverage (e.g., Gorman, 2020;Jensen, 2019) on coyote conflicts. One past result-that perceived risk from and attitudes about coyotes vary even within user groups exposed to a (truly rare) fatal coyote attack (Sponarski et al., 2015)also suggests the importance of nuance in understanding how material and non-material disservices interact. ...
Article
Full-text available
The ecosystem system services framework has potential to help clarify wildlife management challenges at the single species scale, but existing methods struggle to capture the complex values and tradeoffs at play in human–wildlife interactions. We worked with community scientists to gather and use stories (n = 150) as a source of ecosystem services data about living alongside eastern coyotes (Canis latrans var) in rural Vermont, United States. Our a priori ecosystem service assessment showed that human–coyote interactions can have simultaneous positive and negative human well‐being impacts at both the sample scale and for individual interviewees. Our research identified emergent themes that lent insight into how interviewees justified different kinds of relationships with coyotes. We applied a tradeoffs lens to evaluate three policy options based on their potential to mitigate ecosystem disservices and maximize ecosystem services from human–coyote interactions. We found that ecosystem services assessment rooted in a dataset of stories revealed policy‐relevant understanding of value conflicts and alignments at the sample scale without overshadowing the nuances of individual interviewees' experiences.
... The presence of coyotes in urban areas has raised concerns among residents in some locations, who perceive them as a significant threat to human health and safety (Gehrt 2004), despite the relatively low risk they pose to humans (White and Gehrt 2009). Nevertheless, instances of coyote bites on humans have been reported, and residents have expressed additional concerns, including potential harm to children and pets, property damage, and a general sense of unease (Draheim et al. 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
The coyote (Canis latrans) is a generalist species capable of inhabiting urban environments. Although its presence is common in some cities in the United States, it has yet to be recorded in Mexican cities. This report presents the first sighting of a coyote in Villahermosa, Tabasco, obtained from sightings and photographs of a female recorded on several occasions in April and May of 2023 at a site located 2.3 km inside the city. The coyote’s origin prior to inhabiting the urban area of Villahermosa is still being determined. Still, its presence in the area for 10 months indicates that conditions are suitable for some coyote individuals to live in urban areas of Mexico. Coyotes in urban areas could trigger conflicts with residents, as they may be perceived as threats to human and pet safety. Furthermore, interactions with dogs in urban areas could facilitate the spread of diseases to the wild environment where coyotes may be moving. RESUMEN.—El coyote (Canis latrans) es una especie generalista capaz de habitar en ambientes urbanos. Aunque su presencia es común en algunas ciudades de Estados Unidos, no se había registrado hasta ahora en ciudades mexicanas. En esta nota se presenta el primer avistamiento de coyote en la ciudad de Villahermosa, Tabasco, obtenido a partir de avistamientos y fotografías de un ejemplar hembra registrados en abril y mayo de 2023 en un sitio localizado a 2.3 km hacia el interior de la ciudad. Se desconoce el origen del coyote que habita en el área urbana de Villahermosa, pero el haberlo encontrado habitando el área por 10 meses indica que existen condiciones para que algunos individuos de la especie pudieran vivir en áreas urbanas en México. La presencia de coyotes en áreas urbanas pudiera desencadenar conflictos con los habitantes derivados de ser vistos como amenazas para la seguridad de humanos y sus mascotas. Además de la interacción con perros en las áreas urbanas, podrían favorecer la dispersión de enfermedades hacia el medio silvestre en el que los coyotes podrían estar moviéndose.
Article
Full-text available
In the past decade, studies have demonstrated that urban and nonurban wildlife populations exhibit differences in foraging behavior and diet. However, little is known about how environmental heterogeneity shapes dietary variation of organisms within cities. We examined the vertebrate prey components of diets of coyotes (Canis latrans) in San Francisco to quantify territory‐ and individual‐level dietary differences and determine how within‐city variation in land cover and land use affects coyote diet. We genotyped fecal samples for individual coyote identification and used DNA metabarcoding to quantify diet composition and individual niche differentiation. The highest contributor to coyote diet overall was anthropogenic food followed by small mammals. The most frequently detected species were domestic chicken, pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), domestic pig, and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Diet composition varied significantly across territories and among individuals, with territories explaining most of the variation. Within territories (i.e., family groups), the amount of dietary variation attributed to among‐individual differences increased with green space and decreased with impervious surface cover. The quantity of anthropogenic food in scats also was positively correlated with impervious surface cover, suggesting that coyotes consumed more human food in more urbanized territories. The quantity of invasive, human‐commensal rodents in the diet was positively correlated with the number of food services in a territory. Overall, our results revealed substantial intraspecific variation in coyote diet associated with urban landscape heterogeneity and point to a diversifying effect of urbanization on population diet.
Article
Full-text available
To evaluate whether the abundance of coyotes Canis latrans was influenced by the availability of anthropogenic foods in a humanized landscape, we compared three neighboring areas (hereafter referred to as NA, CA, and SA) under contrasting human pressures within the Santa Monica Mountains of California, USA. We quantified the use of anthropogenic foods by coyotes and assessed local densities within these three regions. Overall, 761 coyote feces were analyzed; identified food items were categorized into 11 food types (7 native and 4 anthropogenic). Though small mammals (lagomorphs and rodents) were the main prey of coyotes in all areas and seasons, log-linear modeling of multiway contingency tables indicates that consumption of anthropogenic foods by coyotes varied significantly throughout study areas. Thus, in the most humanized area (CA; 24% of this region is residential habitat), anthropogenic foods (trash, livestock, domestic fruit) comprised seasonally between 14 and 25% of total items in coyote diets, whereas in the least humanized area (NA; 2% residential) anthropogenic foods only comprised seasonally between 0 and 3% of items. Coyote density, estimated by foot-hold trapping surveys and by genotyping feces, was also highly variable between areas. The heavily human-impacted CA area had the highest coyote density (2.4-3.0 ind. km-2), whereas coyote density was significantly lower (0.3-0.4 ind. km-2) in the least humanized area (NA). In the third region (SA; 10% residential), with an intermediate level of human pressure, both importance of anthropogenic foods in coyote diet (4-6%) and coyote density (1.6-2.0 ind. km-2) were intermediate compared to the other regions. Our data suggest that subsidization by anthropogenic foods augments coyote densities and alters their diets in the Santa Monica Mountains, California. We include data from literature to show that anthropogenic foods are used by omnivorous mammals throughout the world. Surprisingly, however, the potential effects of allochthonous inputs on such species are not well-understood. Thus, further research on this phenomenon in humanized landscapes is needed.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Because of the large scales at which large carnivores live, their conservation cannot occur only within protected areas. They must therefore be conserved within multi-use landscapes where conflicts with humans occur. Conflicts are diverse and include depredation on livestock and competition for wild ungulates. However, one of the most serious is the fear of being injured or killed by a large carnivore. Man-killing by tigers, lions, leopards, pumas and bears (brown bear, black bear, polar bear and sloth bear) occurs on a regular basis with hundreds of people being killed annually on a worldwide basis. Although the danger that wolves pose to human safety remains controversial, may people that live in wold range report that they are afraid of wolves. This report attempts to examine the existing data about wolf attacks on humans during the last few hundred years around the world.
Article
We compared the activity patterns of coyotes (Canis latrans) in a suburban/agricultural area to those in an adjacent undeveloped area in northwest Wyoming from August 1998 to August 1999. Activity patterns were recorded using variable-pulse radio-collars. Correlation of recorded activity and observed activity indicated differences in the sensitivity of the collars. The mean percent of active signals for coyotes in the suburban/agricultural area was significantly lower during diurnal periods and significantly higher during nocturnal periods than the mean percent of active signals in those periods for coyotes in the undeveloped area. No differences between the two areas were observed during crepuscular times. Environmental stimuli, such as human activity, increased the amplitude of the circadian rhythms of coyotes. This increase in amplitude is a result of increased nocturnal activity and decreased diurnal activity.
Article
Coyotes (Canis latrans) are common residents of many urban areas in North America, but little is known about how they have adapted to urbanization. With increasing urban sprawl, it is important to understand how and why animals are using urban landscapes. We studied radiocollared coyotes in Tucson, Arizona, USA, from October 1996 to December 1998 to determine home range size, habitat use, and nocturnal movement patterns in 7 habitat patch types: natural, commercial, parks, vacant, residential, washes, and roads. Home ranges of resident coyotes averaged 12.6 km2 (range = 1.7 to 59.7 km2). Home ranges encompassed a smaller portion of natural patches and a larger proportion of park and residential areas than were available in the study area. Coyotes used habitat patch types within the home ranges in proportion to their availability, except during the dispersal season, when coyotes selected natural areas and washes and avoided park and residential areas. We used radiolocation data from 120 nighttime observation sessions of 11 animals to determine nocturnal movement patterns. Rates of movement peaked at 2300 and 0500 hr. Rates of movement did not differ among habitat patch types. Individuals moved minimum distances of 1.3 to 6.2 km during the night. Coyotes were most active at night from 2200 to 2400 hr. Disturbances associated with urbanization are multi-scaled and widespread; therefore, wildlife biologists and managers should study habitat use by urban wildlife at multiple scales.