North American Canis Latrans Bibliography Prepared by: Chelsea Greer and Lani Pulsifer 2021.
Distribution of coyotes and/or reintroduction and culls
Several studies have shown that culling coyotes (or other predators) as a form of population control is often unsuccessful and, in many cases, results in the opposite effect (Sacks, 2005; Goldfarb, 2016; Minnie et al., 2016; Newsome et al., 2017). Post-cull, coyotes and other species of mesopredators have been shown to demonstrate two retaliations: compensatory reproduction and compensatory immigration (Minnie et al., 2016). Compensatory reproduction refers to the observed event where, in response to a lowered population, females will demonstrate a higher reproductive output. This ultimately means a larger population of coyotes in the long run. Similarly, compensatory immigration refers to the fact that as soon as an area is cleared of an individual it is almost immediately reinhabited by a neighboring individual (Minnie et al., 2016; Newsome et al., 2017).
Goldfarb, B. (2016). No proof that predator culls save livestock, study claims. Science, 353(6305), 1080-1081. doi: 10.1126/science.353.6304.1080
Minnie, L., Gaylard, A., & Kerley, G.I.H. (2016). Compensatory life-history responses of a mesopredator may undermine carnivore management efforts. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 379-387. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12581
Newsome, T., Van Eeden, L., Lazenby, B., & Dickman, C. (2017). Does culling work? Australasian Science, 38(1), 28-30.
Sacks, B.N. (2005). Reproduction and body condition of California coyotes (Canis latrans). Journal of Mammology, 86(5), 1036-1041.
Alexander, S. M., Quinn, M. S., 2011. Coyote (Canis latrans) Interactions with Humans and Pets Reported in the Canadian Print Media (1995–2010). Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(5): 345-359, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2011.599050
Alexander, S. M., and M. S. Quinn. 2012. Portrayal of interactions between humans and coyotes (Canis latrans): content analysis of Canadian print media (1998–2010). Cities and the Environment (CATE,) 4(11): Article 9.
Lloro, T., Hunold, C., 2020. The public pedagogy of neighborhood Facebook communities: negotiating relations with urban coyotes. Environmental Education Research, 26(2): 189-205.
Boydston, E. E., Abelson, E. S., Kazanjian, A., Blumstein, D. T. 2018. Canid vs. canid: insights into coyote–dog encounters from social media. Human–Wildlife Interactions 12(2):233–242, digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi
Lukasik, V. M., & Alexander, S. M. (2011). Human–coyote interactions in Calgary, Alberta. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(2), 114–127.
Baker, R. O. 2007. A review of successful urban coyote management programs implemented to prevent or reduce attacks on humans and pets in southern California. Pages 382–392 in D. L. Nolte, W. M. Arjo, and D. H. Stalman, editors. Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Dam- age Management Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
Baker, R. O., & Timm R. M. (1998). Management of conflicts between urban coyotes and humans in southern California. In R. O. Baker, & A. C. Crabb (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference (pp. 299–312). Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.
Boelens, R. (2006). Co-existing with coyotes in Vancouver. Public Management, 88(11), 26–30.
Bonnell, M. A., Breck, S. W., 2017. Using resident-based hazing programs to reduce human-coyote conflicts in urban environments. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 11(2): 146-155.
Elliot, E. E., Vallance, S., & Molles, L. E. (2016). Coexisting with coyotes (Canis latrans) in an urban environment. Urban Ecosystems, 19(3), 1335–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0544-2
McLellan, B. A., Walker, K. A., 2020. Efficacy of motion-activated sprinklers as a humane deterrent for urban coyotes. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2020.1781985
Sampson, L., Van Patter, L., 2020. Advancing best practices for aversion conditioning (humane hazing) to mitigate human-coyote conflicts in urban areas. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 14(2): 166-183.
Young, J. K., Hammill, E., Breck, S. W. 2019. Interactions with humans shape coyote responses to hazing. Scientific Reports, 9:20046. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56524-6
Young, J. K., Draper, J., Breck, S., 2019. Mind the gap: experimental tests to improve efficacy of Fladry for nonlethal management of coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 43(2): 265-271.
Siemer, W. F., Hudenko, H. W., & Decker, D. J. (2007). Coyote management in residential areas: Human dimensions research needs. Wildlife Management Damage Conference, 12, 421–430.
Treves, A., Krofel, M., McManus, J. 2016. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Front Ecol Environ 2016; 14(7): 380–388, doi:10.1002/fee.1312
White, L. A., & Gehrt, S. D. (2009). Coyote attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(6), 419–432.
Worcester, R. E., Boelens, R., 2007. The Co-existing with Coyotes program in Vancouver, B.C. Wildlife Damage Management Conferences — Proceedings. 79. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/79
Province of British Columbia. Furbearer Management Guidelines, Coyote. Available at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do?subdocumentId=833
British Columbia Conservation Foundation. Coyote. https://wildsafebc.com/coyote/
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (2011). Coyote exclusions, deterrents and repellents. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Coyote-Exclusions-Deterrents-Repellents.pdf#search=coyote
Coyote Watch Canada. Keeping Coyotes Away. Available at: https://www.coyotewatchcanada.com/files/KeepingCoyotesAwayCWCHAZING-BROCHURE09162.pdf
Coyote Watch Canada. Co-existing with Wildlife. Available at: https://www.coyotewatchcanada.com/files/CWCCOEXIST-BROCH0920.pdf
Coyote Watch Canada. Canid Mythbusters. Available at: https://www.coyotewatchcanada.com/files/CWCMythbustersJun72018.pdf
Public or stakeholder/Human Perceptions of Coyotes
Drake, M. D., Peterson, M. N., Griffith, E. H., Olfenbuttel, C., DePerno, C. S., Moorman, C. E., 2020. How Urban Identity, Affect, and Knowledge Predict Perceptions About Coyotes and Their Management. Anthrozoös, 33(1): 5-19, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2020.1694302
Draheim, M. M., Patterson, K. W., Rockwood, L. L., Guagnano, G. A., Parsons, E. C. M. 2013. Attitudes of college undergraduates towards coyotes (Canis latrans) in an urban landscape: Management and public outreach implications. Animals, 3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ani3010001
Webber, K., 1997. Urban coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) in the Lower Mainland, British Columbia: Public perceptions and Education. M.S. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 84 pp.
Wilson, J., Rose, J. 2019. A predator in the park: mixed methods analysis of user preference for coyotes in urban parks. Leisure Studies, 38:3, 435-451, DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2019.1586979
Bekoff, M., Wells, M. C., 1986. Social ecology and behavior of coyotes. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 16: 251-338.
Bekoff, M., Gese, E. M., 2003. Coyote (Canis latrans). In G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, & J. A. Chapman (Eds.), Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management (pp. 467–481). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Breck, S. W., Poessel, S. A., Mahoney, P., & Young, J. K. (2019). The intrepid urban coyote: A comparison of bold and exploratory behavior in coyotes from urban and rural environments. Scienti c Reports, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38543-5
Gehrt, S. (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.
Join The Fur-Bearers today and help us protect fur-bearing animals in the wild and confinement. To become a monthly donor (for as little as $10/month – the cost of two lattes) please click here and help us save lives today. Your donation is tax-deductible.
Established in 1953, The Fur-Bearers is a charitable, non-partisan organization whose goals are to end the commercial fur trade and promote solutions for wildlife coexistence in communities. Your donation is tax-deductible. Charitable registration number: 130006125RR0002