Hailee Anzisi, Danica Heck, Lauren Seitz, Caitlin Rillo 

February 12, 2018 

Coyote Management Case Study 

BIOL-ENVL 3121 

Issue  

According to the Atlantic County Parks commission, coyotes are devastating the prey

population, as well as pets, in the community of Estell Manor, New Jersey. What is unclear is

how many coyotes are in this area, and the extent of their damage. The Atlantic County Parks

commission is asking for advice on what to do about this predation problem.

Wildlife Ecologist

Argument

One stakeholder would be a wildlife ecologist; they were asked to advise the Atlantic

County Park Commissions on how to resolve this devastating predation problem. Just hunting

these animals would not solve this problem, due to their adaptive behavior, once one is killed

another one will reproduce or another coyote will move into the area. The coyotes home range is

solely based on resources meaning the more resources they have the more they will reproduce,

and in some cases the bigger their home range will expand (Saunders, D. 1988). However, in

most cases when resources are abundant coyotes will make their home range smaller and make

use of the abundant prey, which in this case are pets, as well as the parks wildlife. Based on the

knowledge of coyotes adaptive behavior a wildlife ecologist would advise against hunting the

coyote to solve the predation problem.  

 Coyotes are generalists; this means they can adapt and change to fit their environment.

Killing off one predator leaves an open space for other coyotes to come in and take over. Simply

hunting these animals will not rid the town of this predation problem. The town, as well as the

park, should practice husbandry. This means townspeople, as well as park goers, should clean up

after themselves and not leave trash out; this attracts opossum, bunnies, deer and rabbits, which

attract the coyotes. Pet owners should watch their animals when outside instead of just letting

them roam, as well as invest in noisemakers, and bright lights to scare off the coyotes.  

Besides not solving the coyote problem, hunting has many other drawbacks. If hunting

was allowed in this park, many people could get injured. With the increased amount of coyotes

an increasing amount of hunters will emerge, and the chance of these hunters mistaking another

hunter, or a park goer for an animal, or accidentally hurting a pet can become an issue. Coyotes

reproduce very quickly, so shooting them will not affect their population too drastically because

of their high fecundity rate. If it does decrease their population, there is a big chance another

coyote pod will move in to take its spot (Lombardi, J., et. al. 2017).  

As a wildlife ecologist, many assumptions will be made when dealing with this sort of

predation problem. One assumption would be that the Atlantic County Park Commissions is not

educated on the coyote population and dynamics. This is a logical assumption due to their email

referring to coyotes as “pods,” not realizing they are more solitary animals instead of pack

animals. Next, the population is not educated on this problem as well; this is due to their quick

thinking of killing the coyotes off as a solution. This is extremely illogical because killing the

coyotes will only make room for more coyotes or other predators. Lastly an assumption made by

the wildlife ecologist would be, once they have explained the problem and possible solutions, the
public as well as the Atlantic County Parks Commission would understand and work towards

this goal. This is not very logical due to the public's tendency to ignore solutions that take up

time, money, or do not have a fast solution.

Evidence: Coyote Ecology  

In urban areas such as parks or towns, coyotes can reach their highest densities due to

lack of predation (Lombardi, J. et. al. 2017). A study done in Chicago and New York shows how

well coyotes have adapted to urban life, while only needing small areas of cover or natural

habitat. In urban areas coyotes have been shown to travel near residents due to the high

abundance of food. When the food becomes low in forests or other areas coyotes are seen to be

transient and move from habitat to habitat (Hinton, J., et. al. 2015). In this study, the majority of

coyotes preferred to live in urban areas with little areas of cover due to its high abundance of

resources.  

Thought of as pack animals, coyotes are known to scavenge and hunt alone, while still

being able to adapt to hunting in pairs or even in family groups, utilizing scavenger and predator

tactics. Coyotes are also known to become specialists, only eating one type of prey that is

abundant all season. This was shown in a study from 1975-1980 in Essex County, New Jersey

where white-tailed deer was the coyotes’ primary food source year round (Saunders, D. 1988).  

Reproduction is another major ecological factor when dealing with population control

and regulation. Coyotes have one litter of about 4-12 pups (Saunders, D. 1988). This is a high

reproduction rate and is why hunting is a very difficult tactic to reduce population. Pups are fully

grown by 9 months and will often leave the den to begin breeding by the age of 10-11 months of
age. Social as well as nutritional factors determine the size of litter and age of breeding. Life

expectancy is 18 years, with wild adults living 6-10 years. 

Coyotes prey on a variety of animals, which explains why populations are often seen as a

nuisance species (Henke, S.E., et. al. 2002). Managing coyote populations are often needed

because of their erratic hunting patterns, killing a variety of species (Henke, S.E., et. al. 2002). In

this case, killing pets. There are a variety of methods available to be used in managing coyote

populations, some lethal and some non-lethal.

Atlantic County Parks Commission

The Atlantic City Park Commission has been asked to step in to address the

community’s concerns about their family’s safety as well as the safety of their pets. The

commission has heard the opinions and concerns of the park goers, pet owners, and overall

general community and has reached out to Wildlife ecologists who have expertise in the subject

matter, in order to aid in their final recommendation. Without taking all into consideration and

before a thorough education on management efficiency and coyote ecology, the commission

shares an initial point of view.

Many members of the community have expressed the desire for the coyotes to be hunted,

as the coyotes are responsible for the death of their household pets and fear what the coyotes

could do to their children. They feel as if their pets and children should be free to roam their

yards without the fear of an attack.​ ​In Arcadia, Los Angeles during 2004, lethal trapping was

proved to be effective in controlling coyote populations. Burlap wrapped, steel, offset jawed

traps were strategically placed in attempt to trap and kill problematic coyotes (Baker, R.O.
2007). 20 traps over the span of 80 days were able to trap and kill 55 coyote--there were 0

non-target kills (Baker, R.O. 2007).

Other pet owners feel as if they should keep their pets inside as much as possible; and are

fearful that an increased number of hunters could lead to a hunting accident. Though these

concerns must be acknowledged and considered, the Commission is assuming that the coyotes

killing pets in populated locations, just outside of homes is an erratic behavior and outweighs the

slight risk that an open hunt and lethal trap methods would portray. Research shows that

management techniques have taken a turn from eliminating the population to simply managing

the population in a way that reduces the damage caused by said population (Shivik, J. A., et. al.

2004).Husbandry tactics are non-lethal methods of management that require humans to minimize

conflict with the species (coyote) (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2004). Light and sound stimuli can be

used to scare the coyotes away from an area. Studies show that coyotes are not likely to feed

when light and sound stimuli are both present; yet when only a sound stimulus is used, they may

feel more comfortable feeding (Darrow, P.A., et. al. 2009). Though a good temporary technique,

the coyote will eventually get acclimated to the sound and light, and it will become less effective

over time (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2004). 

The Atlantic City Park Commission will listen to the opinions of the townspeople and

park-goers, but also will seek advice from experts in the field. Though hunting may be necessary,

the Commission is not opposed to trying other management techniques as well. Trapping in

addition to husbandry tactics like eliminating food sources (use of locking garbage cans, keeping

pet food and water inside, not feeding wildlife) can be very effective in preventing their
appearance so close to home (Howell 1982). Both lethal and non-lethal tactics have their

advantages and disadvantages, but overall would work hand and hand with each other.

Park Visitors

Argument

Many different kinds of people visit parks, whether they be joggers, bikers, birdwatchers,

or those just wanting to go for a stroll to get a break from their busy lives. A potential coyote

problem could be a great concern for people who just want some recreation and do not want to

have to worry about predators lurking.. Fear, from misconceptions due to popular culture and/or

lack of education about the species, could create a biased view against the coyotes wandering

around Estell Manor Park. Park-goers might think that they could be attacked by them, an

assumption that is not entirely baseless. In urban and suburban areas, an increasing pattern of

coyote attacks in southern California started in the 1970s. This increase in incidents began to

spread to other states and parts of Canada in the 1990s. Though a large portion of attacks remain

in California, there are still over three-hundred recorded nationwide from 1977 to 2015. In a

study evaluating three-hundred and sixty-five documented cases, adults comprised of sixty

percent, while children under ten made up the remaining forty percent of attacks (Baker, R.O., et.

al. 2017). And only one fatality has ever been recorded in the United States: a child in Southern

California in the 1980s who was encouraged by her father to feed coyotes (The Humane Society
of the United States 2018; (Grinder, M., et. al. 1998). Human provokation is often the cause of

attacks: commonly, coyotes are purposely or accidentally fed, become habituated to human

presence, and therefore pose a greater risk to them (Grinder, M., et. al. 1998).

However, in the grand scheme of things, these attacks are rare (Grinder, M., et. al. 1998).

Even still, informing people about this and educating them about coyote ecology, and what

precautions to take because of it, does not necessarily mean they will follow advice or handle

encounters with any sort of finesse. Fear can be a difficult thing to overcome, and for those park

visitors who feel that way, may want a permanent solution to the problem. They may think that

eliminating the coyote population will accomplish that. For park visitors operating on the

assumption that coyotes pose a threat to them, lethal methods would be their recommendation to

control the population. Possible techniques and their documented effectiveness will be covered

in the following section.

Evidence: Lethal Methods

A variety of lethal methods have been used to manage coyotes for decades, all sharing the

goal of reducing their populations, and therefore, the problems they present. A couple common

techniques are the use of M-44s and “coyote calling”. Depending on the situation, more than one

may be used, or they may be used in conjunction with non-lethal methods. Many factors are

taken into consideration when deciding on a strategy, including the species’ ecology and the

nearby environment. In particular for the M-44, the Environmental Protection Agency has strict

mandates for their uses that must be adhered to, such as storage, disposal, safety, and training
(Wildlife Services 2017; Mitchel, B. R., et. al. 2004). The following will cover some information

about this device and the aforementioned “coyote calling”. 

An M-44 is a device that ejects less than one gram of sodium cyanide powder into the

mouth of whatever animal decides to bite and pull it. This powder then reacts with saliva in the

mouth and hydrogen cyanide gas is released, killing the animal within one to five minutes. The

device has four parts: a cyanide capsule, the capsule holder wrapped in soft material like wool, a

stake, and a spring-activated ejector. The M-44 is set up, staked into the ground, and bait is

placed to elicit interest. Warning signs are put near and around it, and any local residents are

informed of their use in the area. Procedures are strictly followed so that any possible risk to

people is kept at a minimum. These devices are generally effective in attracting their target

species; from 1996 to 2006, the animals killed by the USDA’s Wildlife Services’ M-44s were

more than 97 percent the target species (Wildlife Services 2017). However, effectiveness is

reduced during warmer periods, when other food sources are more readily available to coyotes.

Additionally, the restrictions placed on them by the EPA can make their implementation difficult

and some states do not allow them at all. And like all man-made devices, they are subject to

malfunctions, though frequent maintenance can help (Green, J.S., et. al. 2005).. 

“Coyote calling” is the use of sounds to grab the attention of coyotes so that they either

respond back, or approach the source of the noise. One’s mouth, hand-held callers, or electronic

speakers can make calls. Often they are coyote howls or sounds prey would make. Coyote

calling is used for denning:: trappers will use coyote responses to identify the locations of dens

so that they may find and kill the pups and/or adults (Mitchel, B. R., et. al. 2004). A study

conducted in 1983 demonstrated the effectiveness of this method: when only pups were killed,
attacks on sheep decreased by 87.7%, and when the whole coyote family was killed, attacks

decreased by 98.2% (Till, J. A., et. al. 1982). Due to the selective nature of this technique, there

does not seem to be much threat posed to non-target wildlife, or humans. Denning can be

difficult to accomplish; it requires a great deal of skill, time, and determination to properly track

down coyotes to their dens. Though if done properly, results are immediate, if short-term (Green,

J. S., et. al. 2005).

While the evidence shows these methods can be effective in managing coyote

populations, the manner in which coyotes respond to lethal methods do not make them very

useful in the long run.. Usually, when faced with such population reduction, coyotes display

higher reproductive rates and increased immigration into the area being treated (Green, J. S., et.

al. 2005). Therefore, while a park visitor’s recommendation does have merit, it seems to be too

simplistic of an answer to the problem.

Pet Owners

Argument

Residents of Estell Manor who live locally in relation to the park, are deeply affected by

this invasive coyote population, as many of their house pets have been attacked or killed.

Residents must confine their pets to the inside of their homes or in a gated yard in order to ensure

this invasive coyote population does not attack their pets. These residents in turn strongly agree

that these coyotes should be systematically relocated from Estell Manor Park. 

Domestic pets such as cats and dogs live very closely with that of their owners, making

these animals like family to their owners. Some people even look to their pets as their children.
With that in mind, if these coyotes are attacking household pets, a question can be raised as to

whether or not actual children are at risk of being attacked as well. Not just children but all

people who live in Estell Manor are threatened by these coyotes. According to a study done in

Southern California between the years 1998 through 2003,coyote attacks on pets and humans has

increased due coyote’s loss of fear towards humans and their dependency on food in the

suburban area (Timm, R.M., et. al. 2004). The study explains that when humans do not show an

aggressive behavior towards coyotes lose their fear of humans and therefore in some situations

there have been accounts of coyotes chasing humans on bicycles or while walking their pets

(Timm, R.M., et. al. 2004).  

Due to the close relationship that domestic animals such as cats and dogs have with their

owners, pet owners will argue that it is in every resident’s best interest to develop a plan to

remove or relocate this predator species in order to ensure human safety as well as pet safety.

Because local residents are worried about the safety of both humans and pets in the area, their

suggestion is not necessarily to open a hunting season in Estell Manor Park but propose that

these dangerous coyotes be captured and relocated from this family-friendly park. Pet owners

may suggest that lethal traps be set up in order to assure that these predators are removed from

the area. But after rationale sets in, they may realize that having lethal traps in a public park

poses a much more serious threat to humans, pets, and other wildlife that live in the area, not just

coyotes.  

Whether these coyotes are strategically killed or trapped and relocated, pet owners tend to

make the assumption that simply removing coyotes from the area is a permanent solution. They

may assume that if these coyote families are either killed or relocated, the threat of coyotes will
be diminished completely. But in actuality, coyote populations migrate to any area if that area

has the proper conditions for them to thrive (Lombardi, J., et. al. 2017). Another assumption that

pet owners tend to have is that if a hunting season is deemed or a plan is developed to trap and

relocate these coyotes, pet owners think this will be a quick and easy tasks to accomplish. It is

assumed that the average person does not know the details about coyote characteristics; but in

actuality coyotes are very difficult to hunt or trap because they are very sly.  

Evidence: Coyote Management 

One of the main non-lethal methods in the relocation and prevention of coyotes in an

undesired area is the use of primary and secondary repellents. Primary repellents can be defined

as disruptions that immediately deter a predator (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2003). These repellents can

be visual, auditory, or chemical and act to disrupt the normal behaviors of predators and, more

specifically, coyotes. Electronic guards are an example of primary repellants and they act as

strobe lights and sound sirens that go off during the night (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2003). Secondary

repellants differ from primary repellents due to the fact that secondary repellents are effective

based on the ability for wildlife to learn from them. Secondary repellents use a bit of psychology,

as they rely on learned behavior from the animal. For example, electric shock can be just as

effective to drive off an animal, stop whatever it is they are doing, because a painful shock is felt

throughout their body. The goal is that after a few times of getting shocked, the wildlife will

associate the device giving the shock to an uncomfortable feeling (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2003). 

Another form of non-lethal management of predators is the use of fencing in a desired

area as a way to protect it from danger. This form of management involves the construction of a
barrier that will keep prey species or domestic animals apart from dangerous predator species

(Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2004). Although fences are known for being very effective, they are not

very economically feasible if a large amount of land needs to be protected. When constructing a

fence, there are some considerations to make about the dimensions in which the fence is desired,

in order to keep the predators species from sneaking inside of the fence. According to

researchers, fencing is the best management option when being used for small night time

enclosures (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2004).  

Trapping of predators is another form of management that comes in many different

variations. Large box traps (25.4 x 30.5 x 81.3cm), large foothold traps, and pan-tension devices

are recommended traps as they are specific to larger animals and will not mistakenly hurt small

animals (Kamler, J. F., et. al. 2002). In order to get an animal to be lured in close to a trap, there

must be bait near the trap. In one study, a technique involving freezing bait and then tying it

securely to the bottom of traps in order to prevent the predator from taking the bait but not

setting off the trap (Kamler, J. F., et. al. 2002). In this study, there was a 94% capture rate of

coyotes, making this form of management very successful and highly recommended for the

management of predatory coyote species.

Final Recommendation

Overall with information known about methods to manage coyote populations and

overall coyote ecology, it is our final recommendation to use non-lethal methods of management

in order to address the issue at hand in Estell Manor. Due to the rapid and efficient reproduction

rate of coyotes, hunting them is a very difficult and non-efficient means of management
(Saunders, D. 1988). Methods such as husbandry is one way of keeping these animals away from

the towns pets, as well as the park visitors (Shivik, J. A., et. al. 2004). This technique involves

keeping areas clean of garbage, supervising pets when outside and placing noise makers and

lights to deter the coyotes.​ ​Fencing is another non-lethal method that is critical to protecting

house pets and preventing coyotes from wandering into unwanted areas.​ ​Finally, educating the

community is the most critical recommendation, as coyotes naturally fear humans unless they

become habituated to them. If people are taught and understand the ways in which this happens -

such as feeding coyotes - and understand the consequences of such actions, the hope is that they

will avoid them in the future.

Once these plans become enforced there can still be drawbacks, such as the community

still might not comprehend the need for non-lethal methods of removing these animals. As well

not wanting to put forth money and the time it will take to put these noise makers. Many park

goers and pet owners want the quick and simple way to rid themselves of the coyote problem.

So, it may not make every stakeholder happy - like the park visitors who wanted lethal methods -

but the only solution that will keep pets, owners, as well as the wildlife safe is non-lethal

methods such as husbandry and trapping.

 Literature Cited

Baker, RO. 2007. A review of successful urban coyote management programs implemented to

prevent or reduce attacks on humans and pets in southern California. Wildlife Damage

Management Conference 58: 382-391

Baker, RO., R.M. Timm. 2017. Coyote attacks on humans, 1970-2015: implications for reducing

the risks. Human-Wildlife Interactions 11(2): 120-132.

Darrow PA., J. Shivik. 2009. Bold, shy, and persistent: Variable coyote response to light and

sound stimuli. Applied Animal Behavior Science 116(1):82-87.

Green, JS., F. R. Henderson, M. D. Collinge. 2005. Coyotes. Internet Center for Wildlife

Damage Management. Available from: http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/Coyotes.asp

Accessed: 2/16/2018

Grinder, M., P. R. Krausman. 1998. Coyotes in urban areas: conflicts and solutions. Cross

Border Waters: 235-243.

Henke SE., D. Pence, F. Bryant. 2002. Effect of short-term coyote removal on populations of

coyote helminths. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38(1):54-67. 

Hinton J., F. van Manen, M. Chamberlain. 2015. Space Use and Habitat Selection by Resident

and Transient Coyotes. pLoS One (10).

The Humane Society of the United States. 2018. Coyotes and people: what to know if you see or

encounter a coyote. Available from:

http://m.humanesociety.org/animals/coyotes/tips/coyotes_people.html Accessed:

2/15/2018
Kamler JF., W.B. Ballard, R. L. Gilliland, K. Mote. 2002. Improved trapping methods for swift

foxes and sympatric coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:1262-1266. 

Lombardi J., C. Comer, D. Scongnamillo, W. Conway. 2017. Coyote, fox,bobcat response to

anthropogenic and natural landscape features in a small urban area. Urban Ecosystems

(20): 1239-1248. 

Mitchel BR., M. M. Jaeger, R. H. Barrett. 2004. Coyote depredation management: current

methods and research needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1209-1218. 

Saunders D. 1988. Coyote. Adirondack Mammals. State University of New York, College of

Environmental Science and Forestry 216pp. 

Shivik JA. 2004. Non-lethal alternatives for predation management. Sheep & Goat Research

Journal 19:64-71. 

Shivik JA., A. Treves, P. Callahan. 2003. Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: primary

and secondary repellents. Conservation Biology 17:1531-1537. 

Till, JA., F. F. Knowlton. 1983. Efficacy of denning in alleviating coyote depredations upon

domestic sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(4): 1018-125.

Timm, RM., R.O. Baker, J.R. Bennett, C.C. Coolahan. 2004. Coyote attacks: an increasingly

suburban problem. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Vertebrate Pest Conference.

69:47-57.

Wildlife Services. 2017. M-44 device for predator control. Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service. Available from:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/fs-m44-device.pdf Accessed:

2/9/2018