Content uploaded by Stanley Gehrt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stanley Gehrt on Nov 01, 2014
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.