Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2):166–183, Fall 2020 • digitalcommons.usu.edu/hwi
Advancing best practices for aversion conditioning (humane hazing) to mitigate human–coyote conflicts in urban areas Lesley Sampson, Coyote Watch Canada, P.O. Box 507, 272 Four Mile Creen Road, St. Davids, Ontario, Canada Lauren Van Patter, Department of Geography & Planning, Queen’s University, E208 Mackintosh- Corry Hall, Kingston, Ontario, Canada [email protected]
Abstract: Coyotes (Canis latrans) are now recognized as a permanent feature in urban environments across much of North America. Behavioral aversion conditioning, or humane hazing, is increasingly advocated as an effective and compassionate alternative to wildlife management strategies, such as trap and removal. Given a growing public interest in humane hazing, there is a need to synthesize the science regarding methods, outcomes, efficacy, and other relevant considerations to better manage human–coyote conflicts in urban areas. This paper was prepared as an outcome of a workshop held in July 2019 by Coyote Watch Canada (CWC) to synthesize the literature on aversion conditioning. The paper also includes the deployment experiences of members of the CWC Canid Response Team. Herein, we propose best practices to enhance the efficacy of aversion conditioning for the management of urban wildlife, particularly coyotes. We detail recommendations concerning: the importance of consistency, adaptability, humaneness, and clear goals; training and proactive implementation; and the need for a comprehensive wildlife coexistence program. We further detail additional considerations surrounding domestic dogs (C. lupus familiaris), public perceptions, and defining behavior and conflict. We hope this synthesis will assist wildlife managers and local governments in identifying and deploying nonlethal human–coyote conflict mitigation strategies that are effective, humane, and community supported.
Key words: aversion conditioning, canid, Canis latrans, coyote, human–wildlife conflict, humane hazing, nonlethal, urban wildlife management
Coyotes (Canis latrans; Figure 1) are increas- urban environments (e.g., Sterling et al. 1983, ingly recognized as a permanent feature of Messmer et al. 1997b, Treves and Karanth 2003, urban environments across much of North Treves et al. 2016, Bergstrom 2017). America (Hody and Kays 2018). As highly Concomitantly, behavioral aversion condi- adaptable generalist omnivores, they are pro- tioning, also termed humane hazing, is increas- ficient foragers who make use of a range of ingly advocated as an effective and compas- natural and anthropogenic foods within cities sionate alternative to wildlife management (Gehrt et al. 2011, Murray et al. 2015, Poessel et strategies such as trap and removal (involving al. 2017). Heightened public awareness of their translocation or lethal interventions; Shivik presence and concern over the potential for 2004, Bonnell and Breck 2017, Breck et al. 2017). negative interactions, especially with domestic Bonnell and Breck (2017, 147) defined aversion pets, have increased community interest and conditioning as “deliberate negative condition- the dialogue surrounding human–coyote con- ing. A training method that employs immediate flict (Alexander and Quinn 2011, Elliot et al. use of deterrents or negative stimulus to move 2016, Draheim et al. 2019). At the same time, the an animal out of an area, away from a person public may be increasingly concerned with the or discourage an undesirable behavior or activ- use of lethal control options, which have been ity. Hazing is conducted to sensitize coyotes to the status quo for managing predators and the presence of humans or human spaces such other “nuisance” wildlife (Messmer et al. 1997a, as backyards and play spaces. Hazing does not Wittmann et al. 1998, Messmer et al. 1999, harm animals, humans, or property.” Martínez-Espiñeira 2006, Jackman and Rutberg Among the approaches commonly termed 2015). In addition to public perceptions, there hazing, there are a number of competing defi- are ethical, scientific, and legal considerations nitions. Project Coyote (n.d.) differentiates affecting the use of lethal control options in between passive hazing, or making an area Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 167
efficacy of aversion conditioning and -the fac tors that influence its success have been used to argue against the widespread implementation of nonlethal conflict-mitigation strategies (e.g., Brady 2016). However, studies that report mixed results of hazing efficacy have acknowledged limitations, including: (1) difficulty in quantify- ing coyote behavioral responses to hazing; (2) no standard approach for assuring and assess- ing the competency of those administering the treatment, especially if conducted by members of the lay public; (3) difficulty in relating short- term behavioral responses of coyotes to long- term changes in behavioral patterns; and (4) Figure 1. A mother eastern coyote (Canis la- pronounced differences between treatment and trans) feeds her pups in a residential backyard in the city of London, Ontario, Canada (photo control sites that likely confound study results by J. Merner for Coyote Watch Canada). (Bonnell and Breck 2017, Breck et al. 2017). As local governments and wildlife manag- unsuitable for coyotes (i.e., habitat modifica- ers attempt to develop human–wildlife conflict tion, attractant removal, deterrents), and active mitigation strategies that are effective, humane, hazing, or responding to coyote activity to and community supported, there is a need for reshape their behaviors and create avoidance. guidance regarding if and how aversion condi- Breck et al. (2017) stated that nonlethal (as well tioning can be successfully implemented as a as lethal) approaches also may be either proac- nonlethal response strategy (Young et al. 2019). tive or reactive. In proactive hazing, all coyotes To respond to this need, in July 2019 Coyote in an area are conditioned to avoid interactions Watch Canada (CWC) convened an Aversion with humans prior to any specific concerns. Conditioning Best Practices Workshop to Conversely, reactive hazing targets specific discuss existing evidence and recommenda- individuals who have already started to dem- tions on aversion conditioning. Coyote Watch onstrate behaviors that are viewed as undesir- Canada is a community-based and volunteer- able by the community. The coyote manage- driven federal not-for-profit wildlife organi- ment and coexistence plan in Chicago, Illinois, zation that collaborates with a broad range of USA (Chicago Animal Care and Control n.d.) stakeholders to develop and implement non- differentiates between basic hazing, in which lethal human–wildlife conflict solutions. We residents routinely appear “big and loud” to have demonstrated success in facilitating the scare coyotes away, versus high-intensity haz- development and implementation of sustain- ing, in which trained professionals respond able, effective, and compassionate wildlife to particular incidents using a variety of tools coexistence programs, with a focus on canids such as projectiles or pepper spray. A number (coyotes and foxes). We provide: multilevel of additional deterrent strategies are employed educational programming; private, municipal, in rural settings, including flandry, -condi and provincial level consultation; on-site and tioned taste aversion, and guard animals, but in-office training; and support for municipal are either less implementable or have yet to be wildlife conflict mitigation policy development. explored in urban settings (Shivik and Martin Our methods are field tested and have evolved 2000, Shivik 2004, Parr et al. 2017). through decades of implementation and exper- Despite increased public interest in the use of imentation. Our longest-running program is in hazing to manage human–coyote conflicts, the the Niagara Region of Ontario, Canada, which evidence available regarding the methods, out- after over a decade of collaboration now repre- comes, efficacy, and relevant considerations is sents a flagship model for our Wildlife Strategy conflicting and poorly supported (Shivik 2004, Framework (City of Niagara Falls n.d.; Coyote Grant et al. 2011, Bonnell and Breck 2017, Breck Watch Canada n.d., 2013). et al. 2017). The lack of published data on the Workshop participants included research- 168 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
Table 1. Terms used and the results of a Google Scholar search to compile literature on aver- sion conditioning for coyote (Canis latrans) management published between 2000 and 2019, Coyote Watch Canada, St. Davids, Ontario, Canada. Results Results pages Papers Search term Date range yielded scanned included Coyote “aversion conditioning” Since 2000 283 10 2 Coyote “aversive conditioning” Since 2000 556 10 12 Coyote hazing Since 2000 903 10 4 Coyote deterrent Since 2000 3,460 10 1 Coyote repellant Since 2000 2,170 10 1 Coyote haze Since 2000 4,290 10 0 Coyote harass Since 2000 2,340 10 3 Coyote harassment Since 2000 3,900 10 2 Coyote nonlethal Since 2000 3,030 10 1 Mined from reference lists Since 2000 N/A N/A 2 ers and members of the CWC Canid Response Table 2. Coding nodes (themes) employed Teams (CRTs). The CRTs consist of volunteers in NVivo 12 coding of 2019 peer-reviewed and gray literature search results on aver- trained in CWC’s field-tested methodology sion conditioning for coyotes (Canis latrans). who consult and collaborate to implement Emergent codes in italics. Coyote Watch on-the-ground response such as investigation, Canada, St. Davids, Ontario, Canada. rescue, and conflict resolution. Team members Primary nodes Secondary nodes have a combined total of >35 years of experi- Humane ence in implementing humane wildlife strate- Considerations Geography gies. The CRTs provide on-site investigation, Public safety Pups/den wildlife rescue and release assistance, and Other assessment and mitigation directives, including Definition deployment of aversion conditioning. In this paper, we synthesize the results of the Dogs 2019 workshop with contemporary literature Failure to advance a set of recommendations and con- Food attractants siderations (i.e., best practices) for using aver- Gaps sion conditioning as a nonlethal management tool for mitigating human–coyote conflicts in Limitations urban areas. We briefly describe the methods Noise employed to generate coyote aversive hazing Projectiles best practices, relay the key recommendations Recommendations in terms of the what, when, who, and how of implementing aversion conditioning for urban Visual canid management, and conclude by describing Other additional relevant considerations concerning domestic dogs (C. lupus familiaris), public per- ceptions, and defining behavior and conflict. aimed to synthesize recent literature reflective of the current state of knowledge on aversion Methods conditioning. We detailed search parameters To conduct the literature review, we com- and results (Table 1). We reviewed reference piled peer-reviewed sources using the Google lists of included articles to identify further Scholar search engine. We included only sources that aligned with the search. Combined sources published since the year 2000, as we methods yielded 27 unique articles. Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 169
Table 3. Summary of best practices for aversion conditioning (humane hazing) to mitigate human–coyote (Canis latrans) conflicts in urban areas. Aversion conditioning methods should be adaptable, humane, and applied consistently. We recommend the garbage bag method and do not support the use of dogs (Canis familiaris) or projectiles in hazing. All members of the public should be encouraged to implement basic hazing techniques where appropriate, but high-intensity hazing involving targeted responses to hotspots should only be conducted by personnel who have been trained by someone with firsthand experience deploying the methodology. Mitigation measures should be implemented proactively, rather than reacting to escalating conflict scenarios, and after investigating the circumstances and planning the most effective response. Aversion conditioning should not be implemented in isolation, but rather as part of a com- prehensive wildlife coexistence program that attends to the 4 cornerstones of investigation, education, enforcement, and prevention. Coyote management goals should be clearly defined, approaches consistently deployed, and effects monitored to measure efficacy based on an agreed upon definition of success. Interactions between coyotes and domestic dogs should not be classified as “conflict,” and efforts should be made to educate and enforce responsible pet practices, including not allow- ing dogs to roam freely in wildlife areas. It should be acknowledged that hazing may be less effective when domestic dogs are present, and the priority should be to remove the dog from areas where coyotes may be denning. When implementing aversion conditioning, public outreach and education should prioritize ensuring that residents understand the purpose of hazing as a humane wildlife response tool and that it not inadvertently validate unnecessary and inappropriately high levels of wildlife harassment. “Proximity tolerance” should replace “habituation” in wildlife research, management, and policy vocabularies. Nonlethal interventions such as aversion conditioning should be seen as an appropriate response and mitigation tool for coyotes engaging in any behavior that is deemed undesirable by the community.
Secondly, we identified relevant gray litera- We synthesized literature review findings ture by first searching for “coyote humane haz- into a workshop package, which was distrib- ing” and “coyote aversion conditioning” in the uted to participants in advance of the work- Google search engine. This search identified pos- shop. The 1-day workshop consisted of 2 parts, sibly useful organizations and locales with rel- each with distinct goals: (1) to draft a set of best evant recommendations or other documents on practices; and (2) to discuss the tensions, gaps, aversion conditioning. This search resulted in the and responses to existing literature and recom- following secondary searches: “project coyote,” mendations. There were 7 workshop partici- “Stanley park coyote,” “city of Calgary coyote,” pants with >35 combined years of experience “San Francisco coyote,” “Chicago coyote manage- in deploying response protocols to reshape ment and coexistence plan,” and “humane soci- interactions with canids, including aversion ety coyote hazing guidelines.” Searches resulted conditioning techniques. We present key best in 5 unique documents for coding. practice recommendations and additional con- We analyzed the documents generated by siderations (Table 3). our searches by qualitative coding in QSR International’s NVivo (QSR International Pty Results Ltd., Version 12, 2018). We established nodes What: rigorous methods that are (themes) a priori and others emerged as the data consistent, adaptable, and humane were analyzed. Nodes included: considerations, In terms of what constitutes effective aver- definitions, failures, gaps, limitations, and rec- sion conditioning, methods should be consis- ommendations as well as specific approaches tent, humane, deliver clear messaging, and be (dogs, noise, projectiles, visual; Table 2). flexible in adapting to novel scenarios. Many 170 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
tain healthy boundaries between wildlife and humans. A wide variety of stimuli have been employed and can be successful (e.g., shaker cans, umbrellas, garbage bags). Generally, deployment involves using one’s body along with additional visual or auditory stimuli or tools to send a clear message. The key to success lies not in the specific tool used, but rather the intention of the deployer, effective communica- tion, and persistence. Clear messaging is inte- gral to communicating effectively with canids. In domestic dog training, body language and gestural communication are key and are more effective than visual or auditory communica- tion alone (D’Aniello et al. 2016, Scandurra et al. Figure 2. A member of Coyote Watch Canada 2017). Thus, yelling at a coyote from a window demonstrates the garbage bag method (photo by may not always be effective, and physically Coyote Watch Canada). advancing toward the coyote with purpose is often required. What works in 1 situation may sources note that hazing must be applied con- not be effective in another (Grant et al. 2011), sistently and persistently to be effective (Timm so some degree of persistence and adaptabil- et al. 2004, Grant et al. 2011), and our experience ity may be required. Because each coyote will supports this. If it is only performed by 1 or 2 have a different history and there may be inher- individuals in a neighborhood while other resi- ent differences in behavior, not all coyotes will dents continue to make their property or com- respond similarly to the same stimuli. Efficacy pany comfortable and appealing to coyotes, this requires creativity, flexibility, and innovation, mixed messaging risks eliciting poor results. along with skills to analyze the context and Targeted education campaigns within commu- respond accordingly, which is why we empha- nity hotspots are therefore critical in terms of size the importance of experience and training ensuring residents work together to apply miti- in the following section. gation measures consistently. There is evidence One technique CWC frequently recommends that domestic dogs can differentiate humans is the garbage bag method (Figure 2). Quite both by scent (Schoon and De Bruin 1994) and simply, it involves unfurling and rapidly snap- visually (Huber et al. 2013). Anecdotal observa- ping a large, air-filled garbage bag loudly. It tions from our CRTs and in the literature (Grant can be accompanied by walking toward the et al. 2011) similarly suggest that coyotes can coyote and using a firm, loud voice to encour- recognize individual humans, and therefore if age the coyote to move away. Benefits of this there are only the same few individuals hazing, method include: coyotes are often averse to coyotes may learn to avoid only them. Where loud and unfamiliar noises (Darrow and Shivik aversion conditioning is being conducted by 2009), and this, if done properly, can be quite individuals in a professional role who wear a dramatic; and unlike whistles or airhorns, this uniform (e.g., animal control, humane society, method has the added benefit of providing a police), we will at times recommend that offi- visual stimulus, which is why we recommend cers practice aversion conditioning without the a black or green garbage bag rather than clear. uniform if the coyote has adapted to respond- It creates a visual barrier, and shiny billowing ing to those in uniform but does not act in a plastic can be an alarming sight to an animal. consistent manner with members of the public. Finally, it is accessible and simple to carry and Aversion conditioning is not a specific use. While other methods might have a simi- method, but rather a collection of interventions lar effect, such as popping open an umbrella, designed for a certain aim: to communicate to garbage bags can fit easily into your pocket, are coyotes to move and/or stay away; it is a tool- inexpensive, and are available anywhere. This kit of actions and gestures designed to main- method can be easily used by any member of Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 171 the public regardless of age or ability. It has (Project Coyote n.d., Bonnell and Breck 2017). been used extensively in the communities in In addition to welfare considerations, there is which we work, both by members of our team, a risk that new den sites that result from forced first responders (animal control or services, relocation may be even more problematic than bylaw, humane society, law enforcement, etc.), the original site (Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the public, achieving the desired outcome n.d.). Finally, it is commonly advocated that (e.g., immediate: the coyote is redirected out sick or injured coyotes should not be hazed of the area in an encounter; long-term: coyote (Project Coyote n.d., Bonnell and Breck 2017). behavior is reshaped to avoidance, leading to a We agree with the former, because of the pos- reduction in coyote complaints in an area). sible harm associated with additional stress, Concerns have been raised that coyotes may but would add that appropriately responding become tolerant to a single tool; for instance, to sick or injured coyotes should entail efforts over time they may learn that snapping a gar- to rescue and rehabilitate where such opportu- bage bag does not present a threat and stop nities and resources are available. responding to it. We have not encountered this We advocate against the use of dogs or pro- in our experiences and feel it is important to jectiles such as clay bullets in hazing because reiterate that effective mobilization of aversion these methods are inhumane, and we challenge conditioning is less about any 1 specific tool and their efficacy. In terms of dogs, intentionally more about intention and persistence. Our high creating conflict between 2 canids puts both at degree of success in this method is because if an risk and is unethical. Furthermore, given that individual coyote does not respond to a given domestic canines are key drivers of human– stimulus, we immediately employ another coyote conflict in urban areas (Bombieri et al. tactic and follow through until the desired 2018), enabling an augmentation of this conflict response is elicited. If insufficient response is by intentionally creating antagonistic situa- generated through snapping the garbage bag, tions is irresponsible. We suggest that in any then one should walk quickly and with pur- situation where dogs are currently used to haze pose toward the coyote while snapping it and/ coyotes, a person could deploy the aversion or vocalize loudly and firmly. Clear and confi- conditioning methodologies described here dent body language and assertive voice is more with less risk to all involved, and likely with important than sophisticated tools or body size greater efficacy. In terms of projectiles such as in obtaining desired results. Thus, evolving clay bullets or paintball guns, the risk of injur- public perceptions from fear and misinforma- ing the animal is an important welfare concern. tion to understanding and empowerment is key We also question the intention of hazing done to human–coyote coexistence. at such a distance, as it is misaligned with the Finally, although recommendations for aver- goal of preventing proximate encounters, mak- sion conditioning generally specify that meth- ing it difficult for the coyote in question to link ods should not harm coyotes, a discussion of stimulus to response (Shivik 2004). what constitutes “harm” and how to avoid it is often lacking. Hazing, by definition, induces Best practice: Aversion conditioning me- fear, which could constitute psychological thods should be adaptable, humane, and harm, but which is preferable to the lethal applied consistently. We recommend the control measures that are often implemented garbage bag method and do not support if conflicts remain unresolved. Generally, the the use of dogs or projectiles in hazing. aim of hazing is not to cause physical harm to coyotes. This means, for instance, throw- ing objects near, not at, them. It means being Who: training mindful of the circumstances and possible risks One of the more challenging questions to coyotes (e.g., not hazing them onto a road). related to aversion conditioning is who should Humane practices also mean not forcing a fam- be deploying it. Hazing is often undertaken by ily to relocate their den, unless the situation is those in professional roles or official capaci- dire. Most sources recommend that hazing not ties, such as individuals working in animal be conducted near pups or an active den site control, parks staff, police, etc. Some -recom 172 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
a brochure on keeping coyotes away, which details basic hazing techniques (Figure 3). Some jurisdictions have incorporated instruc- tional videos on hazing within their educa- tional materials, such as the Town of Oakville (2016), Ontario. However, in situations of hotspots where concerns have escalated, effec- tive aversion conditioning to mitigate the situation may require high-intensity hazing (in conjunction with thorough investigation). High-intensity hazing should be deployed only by trained personnel, such as animal con- trol, humane society, parks staff, or wildlife organization employees or volunteers. Those deploying high-intensity hazing should have received comprehensive training on assess- ing conflict scenarios and effective use of the appropriate mitigation techniques. As noted by Bonnell and Breck (2017, 154), “hazing is a complex concept and is difficult to teach using non-personal media such as on-site signs,” and therefore, in-person training is recommended. We recommend that training on aversion con- ditioning only be conducted by those who have firsthand experience deploying the meth- odology. For instance, CWC regularly holds Figure 3. Coyote Watch Canada’s “Keeping training sessions for municipal employees in Coyotes Away” brochure (available from https:// www.coyotewatchcanada.com/files/CWCKEEP- animal management or first response roles. We ING-COYOTES-AWAY-BROCH0920.pdf). do not support the formation of hazing crews by members of the lay public. Any targeted or mendations target broad audiences, suggest- high-intensity hazing response should only be ing that all members of the public haze coy- undertaken by skilled professionals or volun- otes. There is increasing discussion of “hazing teers capable of assessing and responding to crews” who can respond to hotspots and apply the potential complexity of each situation and aversion conditioning (e.g., see Brennan 2017). who are trained and supported by those with Bonnell and Breck (2017) recruited 207 volun- expertise and firsthand experience. teer community scientists around the Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado, USA, who were Best practice: All members of the public then trained in hazing and asked to record any should be encouraged to implement basic coyote encounters or instances of deployment. hazing techniques where appropriate, But questions of who should be trained and but high-intensity hazing involving tar- how, as well as who should do the training, geted responses to hotspots should only remain unaddressed. be conducted by personnel who have The approach advocated by our organiza- been trained by someone with firsthand tion aligns with the city of Chicago coyote experience deploying the methodology. management and coexistence plan’s (Chicago Animal Care and Control n.d.) differentia- tion of basic versus high-intensity hazing. All When: monitoring and timely members of the public should be encouraged response to practice basic hazing techniques, such as the Often there has already been an escalation garbage bag method, where appropriate. Our of concerns over a period of weeks or months organization’s educational literature includes by the time interventions are deployed (Carillo Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 173
Figure 4. Investigation entails learning about the behaviors of coyotes (Canis latrans), human residents, and the context of interactions. This could involve: tracking coyotes (A); identifying any food attractants, such as garbage (B); and characterizing coyote diet, for instance looking for natural foods like fur and small mammal bones (C), or anthropogenic foods such as birdseed (D; photos by L. Van Patter). et al. 2007). This is not ideal, but rather mitiga- How: as part of comprehensive tion measures should be implemented proac- coexistence framework tively (Fox 2006, Breck et al. 2017). A system for In terms of how aversion conditioning should reporting and monitoring encounters or con- be implemented, our central recommenda- cerns is invaluable in identifying and respond- tion is that it should not be used in isolation, ing to possible emerging hotspots before con- but rather as part of a comprehensive wildlife flicts can escalate. Ideally, hazing should be coexistence framework. Aversion condition- implemented after an investigation of contex- ing is often presented and assessed as a lone tual factors so that an understanding of driv- measure (e.g., Brady 2016, Bonnell and Breck ers of conflict, goals of intervention, and effec- 2017, Breck et al. 2017), despite the acknowl- tive mitigation techniques can be assessed and edged imperative to address additional con- strategized (see next section). cerns, such as anthropogenic food provisioning (Timm et al. 2004, Baker 2007, Elliot et al. 2016, Best practice: Mitigation measures should Baker and Timm 2017). Rather than advocating be implemented proactively rather than for the implementation of aversion condition- reacting to escalating conflict scenarios and ing as a solitary measure, CWC’s 4-cornerstone after investigating the circumstances and approach to coexisting with wildlife entails pre- planning the most effective response. vention, investigation, education, and enforce- ment, each of which is briefly detailed below. 174 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2)
come. Without some investigation, it is impos- sible to understand the context, source of the issue, goal of the intervention, and how to best ensure its outcome. Education. Education is integral to coexisting with wildlife in cities. It is particularly impor- tant to raise awareness of the consequences of intentional or unintentional food provisioning, including pet food, bird feeders, compost piles, accessible urban food gardens, and fallen fruit from trees. The urban coyote conflict litera- ture emphasizes the importance of education about the consequences of feeding as well as wildlife-proofing property (Timm et al. 2004, Baker 2007, Carillo et al. 2007, Baker and Timm 2017). Education campaigns should be targeted and strategic. In a recent survey undertaken in Chicago, Illinois and in Los Angeles, California, USA, knowledge of and attitudes toward coy- otes were highly variable, highlighting the challenges involved in reaching a consensus for appropriate management interventions (Elliot et al. 2016). Most respondents reported that when encountering a coyote, they were more Figure 5. Coyote Watch Canada’s “Coexisting with Canids” doorhanger (available from https:// likely to stand still or walk away than to try to www.coyotewatchcanada.com/files/CWCDoor- scare the coyote away. The authors concluded HangerMay122018.pdf). that nature lovers may equally contribute to coyote conflict, as they are less likely to engage Investigation. Investigation is key, as imple- in hazing and more likely to participate in menting appropriate responses requires an activities that attract wildlife (gardening, com- assessment of contextual factors relevant to each posting, bird feeding, etc.). situation. Without understanding the root cause Thus, education efforts should target - spe of conflicts, interventions may be inappropriate cific behaviors (i.e., what to do and not do), as or ineffective, responding to symptoms rather opposed to attempting to shift broader attitudes than causes. Usually when there is a problem concerning coyotes or other wildlife (Elliot et al. situation, conflict, or hotspot, feeding is the root 2016). Along with conducting an investigation, issue (though other considerations may be rel- one of the first responses undertaken by CWC evant, such as off-leash dogs or infrastructure when we are called into a community or made changes that disrupt foraging opportunities aware of an emerging hotspot is to schedule or travel routes and corridors; Alexander and outreach meetings and/or circulate educational Quinn 2012). Investigation might entail ground materials to the surrounding community, such truthing, tracking, interviewing residents, and as our doorhanger about coexisting with canids identifying food attractants (Figure 4). The aim (Figure 5). is to establish the relevant factors contribut- Enforcement. Enforcement of wildlife-related ing to instances of concern or conflict to help bylaws and ordinances, such as those that pro- inform the most appropriate course of action. hibit feeding, should be consistent to prevent Aversion conditioning is an important tool coyotes from becoming used to frequenting in responding to many situations. However, anthropogenic resources or spaces (Fox 2006). implementing additional concurrent strategies Although education is often effective, a key such as community outreach and education or question is “how many ‘cheaters’ does it take enforcement of wildlife feeding bylaws, may be to change a coyote’s behavior?” (Schmidt and equally important to ensuring a successful out- Timm 2007, 299). Despite education, some Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 175 individuals may still be inclined to provide levels of tolerance for specific behaviors. Ideal food, and therefore the creation and enforce- scenarios will involve community consensus ment of bylaws and ordinances to prevent such and consistent application of techniques to behaviors and ensuing conflict scenarios is key. discourage the presence of coyotes where they Partnerships and coordination between agen- are deemed unacceptable and intervention in cies are central to the success of human–wild- response to behaviors that are viewed as prob- life conflict responses (Fox 2006). Relationship lematic. Coyotes need to live somewhere, and building across agencies and within commu- they need to make a living. If a coyote is walk- nities ensures that information transfer and ing across a field into a treed area, there is no response occurs in a timely and effective man- need to haze it. If it is resting next to a sidewalk ner. Within partner communities, CWC forges during a busy time of day, there will likely be relationships with law enforcement, animal community interest in discouraging this behav- control, environmental and parks staff, neigh- ior. What is acceptable or not is subjective and borhood associations, and other relevant bodies will vary by community. The ultimate goals of to ensure alignment of expectations, efficient management will vary accordingly, as will the division of responsibilities, and clear commu- strategies employed to attain these goals. nication and response pathways. Finally, measuring success of aversion condi- Prevention. Ultimately, strategies should pri- tioning efforts is also a challenge. In our orga- oritize prevention, as opposed to response. nization’s experience, deployment of basic or Proactive nonlethal strategies entail “altering high-intensity hazing along with other relevant the behavior of coyotes prior to the onset of mitigation efforts (i.e., education and enforce- conflict” (Breck et al. 2017, 134). Proactive inter- ment to remove food attractants) will result in a ventions are preferable to reactive, wherein one decrease of incidents reported and frequency of responds to a situation after significant conflict encounters or conflicts. However, it is important has emerged. Proactive preventative strategies to note that individual coyote response to haz- include education and enforcement, but there ing may vary, and a lack of immediate decrease are also ways in which aversion conditioning in sightings does not indicate failure, but rather can be used proactively. Generally, this involves that persistent action may be required. We cau- practicing wider-scale basic hazing to main- tion against oversimplification of anticipated tain healthy boundaries between coyotes and outcomes, such as Bonnell and Breck’s (2017, humans sharing space in an urban environment. 150) “response coding of coyotes…being hazed by citizen scientists to rank individual coyote Best practice: Aversion conditioning should response to hazing from -4 (most averse) to 1 not be implemented in isolation but (coyote approaches).” Although some manner rather as part of a comprehensive wildlife of typology may be useful, individual coyote coexistence program that attends to the 4 responses to hazing techniques will depend cornerstones of investigation, education, greatly on contextual factors such as the pres- enforcement, and prevention. ence of dogs, food resource being accessed, age of individual, proximity of den site, and the A final best practice in terms of how aversion coyote’s history of interactions with humans. conditioning is implemented pertains to defin- If a coyote fails to move away, this may not ing and measuring success. It is imperative to indicate that hazing is ineffective, but rather clearly define the goals of response efforts from that the coyote is reluctant to leave a nearby the outset. Grant et al. (2011, 21) noted that a den site or pups. If a coyote “moves <10 feet common mistake is that “hazing is employed away after input, stops and looks back in the regardless of the specific behaviors or actions direction of stimulus <10 feet from the original of the coyote…hazing should only be used if a starting point” (rank -1 on Bonnell and Breck’s coyote is behaving in a way that is unacceptable [2017, 150] responses), they may be confused to the public or is using an area that residents about the intentions of the deployer or reluc- deem unacceptable.” Therefore, communities tant to leave a valuable food resource. If a coy- need to define which spaces are and are not ote approaches, is the deployer with a dog that acceptable for coyotes to occupy and determine is perceived as a threat to the coyote’s territory 176 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2) or family? Individual responses will depend ingly recognized conservation threat (Lenth greatly on the coyote’s history and food con- et al. 2008, Young et al. 2011, Hughes and ditioning, as well as the efficacy of the specific Macdonald 2013, Doherty et al. 2017). treatment being employed. Individuals who In terms of aversion conditioning, the pres- are not confident and committed and who do ence of domestic dogs can present complica- not sufficiently follow through are not- com tions for deployment. Where a coyote is behav- municating effectively to the animal, and a lack ing defensively toward a roaming dog, the of response should not be seen as problematic coyote may be less responsive to human haz- coyote behavior nor a failure of the methodol- ing attempts, as the primary focus is - onpro ogy itself. This highlights the importance of tecting its territory, resources, or family from training to response success. encroaching canines. In this context, the prior- ity is to maintain or create space between the Best practice: Coyote management goals dog and coyote. This can be done by calling should be clearly defined, approaches con- the dog near, putting the dog on a leash, and sistently deployed, and effects monitored slowly backing out of the area while deploy- to measure efficacy based on an agreed ing basic hazing techniques, such as the bag upon definition of success. method described above. Bonnell and Breck (2017) reported that outcomes of hazing were negatively impacted by the presence of domes- Additional considerations tic dogs. In their research, “coyotes moved ≥10 Along with the best practices discussed feet away from the person hazing 49% of the above, there are several additional factors that time when no dog was present, but only 23% are important to consider when implementing of the time when a domestic dog was present… aversion conditioning: presence of domestic dogs were present during 4 of 5 occasions when dogs, public perceptions, and consistent defini- coyotes approached the person attempting tion of behavior and conflict. We detail each of to haze it” (Bonnell and Breck 2017, 153). The these briefly below and advance several further authors conclude, and we concur, that hazing best practices that incorporate considerations can still be performed if an individual with a of the complexities surrounding these factors. dog encounters a coyote, but that expectations of reduced efficacy in the presence of dogs Domestic dogs should be clearly communicated to residents A key consideration both from the literature being educated about aversion conditioning. and our experience involves the presence of The response of individual coyotes to hazing domestic dogs, which can exacerbate human– in the presence of dogs will depend greatly on wildlife conflict (Lukasik and Alexander 2011, contextual factors, including proximity to a den, Alexander and Quinn 2012, Bowes et al. 2015). presence of pups, presence of food resource, In the case of coyotes, an analysis of Canadian and history of interactions with the individual print media between 1995 and 2010 found that dog or other domestic dogs. 23.8% of articles reporting on conflicts with coy- Overall, education and enforcement concern- otes specifically pertained to coyote–dog inter- ing responsible pet practices are priorities for actions and were characteristic of territorial mitigating one of the largest sources of human– conflicts (Alexander and Quinn 2011). In our coyote conflict in urban areas. Where- roam experiences, territorial conflicts with off-leash ing dogs threaten coyote territories, resources, dogs is one of the primary drivers of human– or families, we can expect coyotes to respond coyote conflicts in urban areas. In terms of miti- defensively. In instances where residents report gating conflict, education pertaining to the risks behavior such as coyotes approaching or shad- to dogs, wildlife, and humans of allowing dogs owing them while domestic dogs are present, to roam is important, along with the creation the best practice is not necessarily to haze coy- and enforcement of leash laws. This is impor- otes, but rather to ensure dogs are on leashes, tant for protecting not only dogs and coyotes, or to keep dogs out of an area with known dens but the many other wildlife species that are at during pup rearing season. For instance, the risk from roaming dogs, which are an increas- Presidio Trust (2020) in California will tempo- Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 177 rarily close sections of trails to humans and/or (2016) similarly reported that individuals who domestic dogs when there are known active do not see coyotes as a problem are unlikely to den sites. haze them. There is a need to educate the public Finally, we contend that interactions between that if they see wildlife responders conducting domestic dogs and coyotes should not auto- aversion conditioning, the aim is not to harm matically be defined as conflicts or result in a or harass the animal, but rather that this action coyote being designated as a problem individ- represents a humane, nonlethal intervention ual. Contexts surrounding interactions need to aimed at cultivating healthy human–wildlife be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As noted boundaries by reshaping canid behavior. above, territorial interactions between animals Just as perceived harassment will offend those is a natural process. If a dog is injured by a who have positive views of coyotes or concerns goose (Anatidae) protecting their young, the for animal welfare, such actions, if carelessly goose is not a problem animal, but rather the applied or insufficiently accompanied by edu- problem is inappropriate human behavior in cational efforts, may embolden those who allowing domestic pets to harass wildlife. The wish to harm coyotes. We have observed com- same should hold true in instances of alterca- munities wherein what was presented as haz- tions between coyotes and domestic dogs. This ing crews have functioned primarily as vigi- is common practice in many of the communities lantes attempting to harass resident coyotes. in which we work, including Toronto, Ontario, An example of the latter would be teams that where the coyote response strategy stipulates market themselves as nonlethal and humane, that “a bite to another animal is not grounds for but who use weapons, projectiles, or dogs removal – it is normal coyote behaviour” (City indiscriminately across space, and even around of Toronto 2017). dens. The inappropriate nature of such appli- cations and the risks they pose to both human Best practice: Interactions between coyotes and coyote safety highlight the importance of and domestic dogs should not be classified education and the need to carefully assess how as conflict, and efforts should be made aversion conditioning programs and practices to educate and enforce responsible pet are applied, perceived, and communicated. practices, including not allowing dogs to roam freely in wildlife areas. It should Best practice: When implementing aver- be acknowledged that hazing may be less sion conditioning, public outreach and effective when domestic dogs are present, education should prioritize ensuring that and the priority should be to remove the residents understand the purpose of hazing dog from areas where coyotes may be as a humane wildlife response tool and not denning. inadvertently validate unnecessary and inappropriately high levels of wildlife harassment. Public perceptions One consideration that has received scant attention in the peer-reviewed and gray litera- Defining behavior and conflict tures is public perception. How the public per- A limitation in the existing literature is the ceives aversion conditioning will influence both inaccurate and sometimes inappropriate char- uptake and willingness to conduct such prac- acterization of coyote behavior. We address tices at the community level and has the poten- several terms and consider how they impact tial to present a risk to animal welfare. If mem- practices and perceptions around success bers of the public do not understand the aims and failure in aversion conditioning delivery. of hazing, they may be concerned about what The first of these is the concept of habitua- they interpret as harassment or harm to wild- tion. Habituation is defined as an “animals’ life. These concerns may be valid if best prac- decreased responsiveness to humans due to tices are not followed. Bonnell and Breck (2017) repeated contact” (Geist 2007, 35). Most often noted a reluctance to haze by some participants the term “habituation,” rather than being used as a result of this perception, and Elliot et al. as a neutral behavioral descriptor, is norma- 178 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2) tively loaded as an undesirable, permanent state A further consideration is how conflict sce- of a “problem animal.” For instance, there is the narios or problem coyotes are defined. A cur- claim that “habituated animals, those who have rent limitation in both the scholarship and for developed a psychological patience with our wildlife practitioners is that “the definition of presence, are potentially much more dangerous a ‘problem coyote,’ and what behaviors that than non-habituated, or ‘wild’ animals, because coyote displays, varies greatly” (Draheim et habituation is a state of unconsummated inter- al. 2019, 8). A frequently cited conceptualiza- est on the part of the animal, expressing itself as tion of problematic coyote interactions is Baker tolerance of and even an attraction to humans” and Timm's (2017; drawing on Baker and Timm (Geist 2007:35). Habituation as a descriptor 1998, Baker 2008) “Behavioral Progression of of a fixed state is problematic due to the chal- increasing coyote habituation to suburban lenges in contextually defining a given animal’s environments.” It progresses from level 1, behavior and the limited evidence to support “increase in coyotes on streets and in yards at the prevailing assumptions that it is both a per- night,” to level 7, “coyotes acting aggressively manent state and inherently dangerous. toward adults in mid-day.” The common asser- Based on field experiences of the CRTs of tion stemming from this classification is that CWC deploying wildlife response measures, we once a situation has attained stage 3, “coyotes advance that “proximity tolerance” is a more on streets, and in parks and yards, in early accurate description of coyote behavior, which morning/late afternoon,” or greater, “problem” reflects the complex and contextual interrelation- individuals will need to be lethally removed, as ship between individual coyotes and humans. nonlethal interventions such as aversion condi- Over time and based on experiences, coyotes’ tioning alone will not sufficiently address the proximity tolerance with respect to humans (as problem (Baker and Timm 2017). For instance, well as other species, like domestic dogs) may Timm et al. (2004, 55) concluded: “once coy- change. This tolerance will depend on contextual otes have begun acting boldly or aggressively factors, including the number, characteristics, around humans, it is unlikely that any attempts and behaviors of the humans present, presence of at hazing can be applied with sufficient consis- dogs, if there is a food resource being accessed, tency or intensity to reverse the coyotes' habit- and history of food provisioning and interactions. uation. In these circumstances, removal of the Just as experiences of food provisioning and posi- offending animals is probably the only effective tive interactions with humans may increase an strategy.” Due to the difficulties of testing such individual’s proximity tolerance, negative inter- a claim in a non-experimental (naturalistic) set- actions such as hazing can effectively decrease ting, it is difficult to either support or challenge this tolerance. Our experiences challenge the this widespread belief. assertion that coyotes with high human proxim- Coyote Watch Canada observations and ity tolerance are always inherently dangerous. experiences in deploying aversion condition- Our observations in the field have yielded no evi- ing do not support the assumption that it is dence that links proximity tolerance and aggres- not possible to reshape the behavior of coyotes sion toward humans. However, it is in a com- who are beyond a certain level of "habituation." munity’s interest to establish healthy boundaries Our CRTs have experienced regular success with all wildlife, including coyotes, and restoring in mitigating instances of human–coyote con- natural avoidance behaviors can be an important flict even when encounters would have ranked part of this. Unlike “habituation,” “proximity tol- highly on this scale, even at stages 5 or 6. The erance” highlights that these behavioral charac- reason we do not include stage 7 is 2-fold. teristics do not represent a fixed state but rather a First, no member of our CRT has encountered fluid relationship that can, with proper response, a situation in which a coyote has acted aggres- be reshaped. sively toward humans. Second, the definition of “aggression” in the context of human–coyote Best practice: “Proximity tolerance” should interactions remains ill-defined within public replace “habituation” in wildlife research, discourse, policy, and management realms, as management, and policy vocabularies. well as the scientific literature. We need more nuanced approaches to characterizing specific, Coyote aversion conditioning • Sampson and Van Patter 179 contextual behavioral responses, as opposed events in which an animal quickly reverts back to assumptions and generalizations. Often to an avoidance state.” Along with attractant “defensive-aggressive” behavior (as defined removal and responsible pet care practices, in the canid behavior literature, Fox 1970) aversion conditioning can be an important part is misinterpreted as “offensive-aggression,” of reshaping coyote behaviors within such tem- which can be frightening to those who do not porary conflict scenarios. understand what they are seeing. For instance, a coyote may demonstrate defensive behav- Best practice: Nonlethal interventions such iors toward domestic dogs within their home as aversion conditioning should be seen as ranges or shadow humans with dogs to ensure an appropriate response and mitigation tool they leave an area with pups or an active den, for coyotes engaging in any behavior that is and such behaviors are often incorrectly inter- deemed undesirable by the community. preted as aggressive coyotes threatening or stalking humans. Rather than aggression, these are naturally protective behaviors in response Conclusions to threats to self, family, or territory. There is Our recommendations and considerations also a noted trend of humans being bitten by for aversion conditioning center on key ques- coyotes while intervening in an encounter tions wildlife researchers and practitioners between a coyote and domestic dog (White and grapple with in implementing this increasingly Gehrt 2009, Alexander and Quinn 2011), but as promoted tool. In terms of what aversion con- we noted above, incidental injuries as a result ditioning should entail, we detail the impor- of canid–canid conflict should not be defined as tance of consistency, adaptability, humaneness, “aggression” toward humans. and clear goals. In terms of who should imple- Furthermore, we find Baker and Timm’s ment these techniques and when, we speak to (1998, 2017) Behavioral Progression classifi- the difference between basic and high-intensity cation to be arbitrary. Why should stage 6, hazing, outlining recommendations in terms “coyotes seen in and around children’s play of training and proactive implementation. In areas, school grounds, and parks in mid-day,” terms of the how, we contend that aversion be ranked as more habituated than stage 5, conditioning should not be implemented in “coyotes attacking and taking pets on leash or isolation, but rather as part of a comprehen- near owners; chasing joggers, bicyclists, other sive wildlife coexistence program that centers adults”? School grounds and parks often rep- on prevention, investigation, education, and resent resource-rich areas containing human enforcement. refuse and the small animals it attracts, so we In terms of the why, our underlying assump- would question why the presence of coyotes tion is that, where possible, nonlethal interven- exploiting these resources in such areas would tions are always preferable to lethal control, as be characterized as highly problematic habitu- is increasingly advocated by the conservation ation, rather than simply signaling the need to community (Dubois et al. 2017). Not only is this manage direct human feeding and anthropo- an ethical imperative, but nonlethal methods genic food attractants within such spaces. have the potential to be more sustainable and Again, we assert that food conditioning and effective in the long term. Lethal coyote man- proximity tolerance should not be seen as fixed agement has been the status quo for hundreds states, but rather as fluid, contextual relation- of years, and the evidence of its inadequacy in ships between individual humans and coyotes mitigating human–coyote conflict is increas- that can be reshaped. Similar findings have been ingly dramatic (Sterling et al. 1983, Knowlton et noted elsewhere, for instance in Bogan’s (2012, al. 1999, Kilgo et al. 2017). 103) research where “the 1 case of emboldened behaviors was sustained as a tendency for 4 Management implications weeks, and then transitioned back to avoidance Coyotes are part of the fabric of our urban behavior.” Thus, we agree with Bogan’s (2012, communities and will remain as such, whether 104) assessment that “conflict interactions humans wish it or not. Whether grounded in may result from short-lived, situation-specific utilitarian arguments of ecosystem service 180 Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(2) provision or based on ethical claims about Baker, R. O., and R. M. Timm. 2017. Coyote at- our obligations to other species, we have an tacks on humans, 1970–2015: implications for opportunity to reshape the nature of our rela- reducing the risks. Human–Wildlife Interactions tionships with urban canids into one that is 11:120–132. based on promoting compassionate coexis- Bergstrom, B. J. 2017. Carnivore conservation: tence, and aversion conditioning is a key tool shifting the paradigm from control to coexis- in working toward this end. Wildlife managers tence. Journal of Mammalogy 98:1–6. should not automatically conclude that there Bogan, D. 2012. The suburban coyote syndrome, are fixed states of advanced habituation that from anecdote to evidence: understanding require lethal removal. Further research based ecology and human safety to improve coexis- on field observations and community engage- tence. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, ment should be conducted to better understand New York, USA. behavioral plasticity in coyotes and the efficacy Bombieri, G., M. del Mar Delgado, L. F. Russo, of appropriately deployed nonlethal interven- P. J. Garrote, J. V. López-Bao, J. M. Fedriani, tions such as aversion conditioning. and V. Penteriani. 2018. Patterns of wild carni- vore attacks on humans in urban areas. Scien- Acknowledgments tific Reports 8:1–9. Participants in CWC's Best Practices for Bonnell, M. A., and S. W. Breck. 2017. Using Aversion Conditioning workshop held in July resident-based hazing programs to reduce hu- 2019 (W. Brown, J. Merner, A. Barklay, A. man–coyote conflicts in urban environments. McLaren) provided many valuable insights, Human–Wildlife Interactions 11:146–155. which helped us in preparing this manuscript. Bowes, M., P. Keller, R. Rollins, and R. Gifford. S. Alexander and B. Patterson provided help- 2015. Parks, dogs, and beaches: human–wild- ful comments on an earlier draft. We thank L. life conflict and the politics of place. Pages Clark, HWI associate editor, and 2 anonymous 146–171 in N. Carr, editor. Domestic animals reviewers for feedback on earlier versions of and leisure. Palgrave MacMillan, London, Unit- this manuscript. ed Kingdom. Brady, S. A. 2016. The problematic trend of Literature cited pseudo-science dictating urban coyote man- Alexander, S. M., and M. S. Quinn. 2011. Coy- agement policy. Proceedings of the 27th Ver- ote (Canis latrans) interactions with humans tebrate Pest Conference. University of Califor- and pets reported in the Canadian print media nia—Davis, Davis, California, USA. (1995–2010). Human Dimensions of Wildlife Breck, S. W., S. A. Poessel, and M. A. Bonnell. 16:345–359. 2017. Evaluating lethal and nonlethal manage- Alexander, S. M., and M. S. Quinn. 2012. Por- ment options for urban coyotes. Human–Wildlife trayal of interactions between humans and Interactions 11:133–145. coyotes (Canis latrans): content analysis of Brennan, C. 2017. Erie rallies citizen ‘crew’ after 32 Canadian print media (1998–2010). Cities and reports of coyotes attacking pets. Daily Camera. the Environment (CATE) 4(11): Article 9. December 28, 2017. Baker, R. O. 2007. A review of successful urban Carrillo, C. D., J. Schmidt, D. Bergman, and G. coyote management programs implemented Paz. 2007. Management of urban coyotes and to prevent or reduce attacks on humans and attacks in Green Valley, Pima County, Arizona. pets in southern California. Pages 382–392 in Pages 323–331 in D. L. Nolte, W. M. Arjo, and D. L. Nolte, W. M. Arjo, and D. H. Stalman, D. H. Stalman, editors. Proceedings of the 12th editors. Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Dam- Wildlife Damage Management Conference, age Management Conference, Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA. Texas, USA. Chicago Animal Care and Control. n.d. Coyote man- Baker, R. O., and R. M. Timm. 1998. Manage- agement and coexistence plan. Chicago Animal ment of conflicts between urban coyotes and Care and Control, Chicago, Illinois, USA,
City of Niagara Falls. n.d. Living with coyotes. City of Conference. University of California—Davis, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada,
garding predators and their management to en- man odours. Forensic Science International hance avian recruitment. Wildlife Society Bulletin 69:111–118. 27:75–85. Shivik, J. A., and D. J. Martin. 2000. Aversive and Messmer, T. A., L. Cornicelli, D. J. Decker, and D. G. disruptive stimulus applications for managing Hewitt. 1997a. Stakeholder acceptance of urban predation. Pages 111–119 in M. C. Brittingham, deer management techniques. Wildlife Society J. Kays, and R. McPeake, editors. Proceed- Bulletin 25:360–366. ings of the Ninth Wildlife Damage Management Messmer, T. A., S. M. George, and L. Cornicelli. Conference, Pennsylvania State University, 1997b. Legal considerations regarding lethal State College, Pennsylvania, USA. and nonlethal approaches to managing urban Shivik, J. A. 2004. Non-lethal alternatives for pre- deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:424–429. dation management. Sheep & Goat Research Murray, M., A. Cembrowski, A. D. Latham, V. M. Journal 14:64–71. Lukasik, S. Pruss, and C. C. St. Clair. 2015. Sterling, B., W. Conley, and M. R. Conley. 1983. Greater consumption of protein-poor anthro- Simulations of demographic compensation in pogenic food by urban relative to rural coyotes coyote populations. Journal of Wildlife Man- increases diet breadth and potential for human– agement 47:1177–1181. wildlife conflict. Ecography 38:1235–1242. Timm, R. M., R. O. Baker, J. R. Bennett, and C. C. Parr, S., J. Engelhart, L. Liebenberg, L. Sampson, Coolahan. 2004. Coyote attacks: an increasing and J. Coleshill. 2017. Guide to coexistence suburban problem. University of California— among livestock, people and wolves. Second Davis, Davis, California, USA. edition. Wolf Awareness, Golden, British Co- Town of Oakville. 2016. Living with coyotes— lumbia, Canada,
Lesley Sampson has been working on behalf of canids for >2 decades and is the found- ing executive director of Coyote Watch Canada. She holds a BPhEd (Honours) from Brock University (1998) and a post-baccalaureate diploma in Education from D'Youville College (2000). Her research and practice center on canid behavior and nonlethal coex- istence methodologies. She is consulted across North America and abroad, facilitating human– wildlife conflict resolution and outreach. Her exten- sive fieldwork experience has included collabora- tions with both scientific and government agen- cies, working with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, local governments, com- munity scientists, and researchers from Queen’s, Manitoba, Toronto, and Guelph Universities.
Lauren Van Patter is a critical human– environment geographer and Ph.D. candidate at Queen's University in Canada, where she works with The Lives of Animals Research Group. She holds a B.Sc. degree in envi- ronmental sciences (2012) and an M.A. degree in geography (2015), both from the University of Guelph. Her doctoral research engages mixed methods from the social and biological sciences to investigate human–coyote conflict and coexistence in urban envi- ronments. She is co-editor of the forthcoming volume A Research Agenda for Animal Geographies (Edward Elgar Publishing).