Mayor Cooper, Deputy Mayor Saunderson and Councillors. Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options

Transcription

1 STAFF REPORT #C Submitted to: Submitted by: Subject: Mayor Cooper, Deputy Mayor Saunderson and Councillors Sara Almas, Clerk Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Council April 30, 2018 Amendments: PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to respond to Council s request that staff undertake an immediate assessment of the threat (of coyotes) in the east end of Collingwood and develop options for Council s consideration by April 30 th, RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive Staff Report C , and approve the updated Coyote Management / Communication Plan, and support the recommendations contained herein. 1. BACKGROUND Town staff presented Staff Report No. C to the Corporate Services Standing Committee on April 9, 2018, in response to several coyote complaints / concerns within Collingwood. During the committee meeting several residents expressed their concerns in regard to problem coyotes in the east end of Town in the vicinity of Georgian Manor Drive and Blue Shores (herein after referred to as the east end ). In response to residents concerns, the committee requested that staff report back to Council on the options available to the Town to remove the immediate threats (of coyotes) in the east end of Town. On April 16, 2018, staff presented a report to Council that included several immediate responses available to the Town regarding the coyotes. Staff presented an alternate recommendation to Council based on the Corporate & Community Services Standing Committee resolution. The alternative recommendation (listed below) was approved and accepted by Council. THAT Council receive Staff Report C , accept the Coyote Management / Communication Plan recommended and further direct staff undertake an immediate assessment of the threat in the east end of Collingwood and develop options for Council s consideration by April 30th, C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 1 of 11

2 The Town is fully aware of the presence of coyotes within Collingwood, and the Town has adhered to information and advice from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and implemented similar education and awareness practices as other proactive municipalities based on Ministry information, Coyote Watch Canada information and support, and other available science-based resources. Coyotes are generally fearful of humans and should not be seen as a threat to human safety. However, they are predatory animals and should be respected as potentially dangerous. Staff have continued to educate residents on ways to reduce human-wildlife conflicts by providing information through: direct mailing to affected neighbourhoods; distribution of brochures; detail website information, including an online coyote reporting form; increased signage along trails and parks; education notices in the newspaper; requesting the assistance of Coyote Watch Canada to educate the public on coexistence with these animals. The basis for promoting the co-existence approach to coyotes is research and evidence from wildlife experts, scientists, biologists and researchers. The direction provided by Council on April 16 th, 2018 was that in addition to undertaking an assessment of the area, Council would like further information on the following options to address the immediate threat : Trap and relocate Trap and kill Alternative Strategies (ie. hazing, etc.) 2. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Input from local trappers Staff met with five local trappers licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry (MNRF) in regard to trapping options available to the Town. During the meeting, trappers discussed the preferred ways to trap coyotes in an urban area as well as some of the limitations and challenges associated with different live trapping tools. All the trappers agreed that a box/cage trap does not generally work unless the coyote was sick and / or injured and cannot readily seek their own food source. Box or cage traps are traps that bait an animal to enter a cage and trap them without injury. The trappers indicated the ideal (live) trapping method would be limited to either a leg-hold restraining trap or a relaxing cable restraint (sometime referred to as a snare trap), depending on the area. All of the aforementioned trapping tools are authorized by the MNRF, but they pose risks to animals, including non-targeted animals such as pets. The trappers provided a demonstration to staff on how the various trapping tools work. Concerns were raised about the risk and possibility of injury particularly if the leg-hold trap or snare trap trapped a non-target animal. A majority of the trappers indicated they would not trap in this area of the east end (Georgian Manor Drive/Blue Shores) or expressed concerns with trapping on the available residential property. It was agreed the only available municipal property locations had significant challenges, and would not be suitable locations for traps. However, some private properties were identified as possible trapping locations. While trapping in an urban area may be challenging, trappers also indicated that due to the time of year, if a mother coyote was trapped C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 2 of 11

3 and removed from her pups, would mean the pups would likely not survive. Concern was also expressed because of the highly publicized issues in this area; some would not trap for that reason as well. The majority of trappers stated that they would not agree to trap coyotes in this area due to the risks. Most of the trappers agreed that proper education was paramount in reducing human-wildlife conflicts and that people must be responsible for the safety of their own pets. Input from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Staff met with senior MNRF experts and officials in regard to the current coyote situation in Collingwood. The representatives of the MNRF included: Jeff Haelzle - Partnership Specialist; John Almond - Resources Operations Supervisor; Andrea Maranduik Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist; Brent Patterson - Research Scientist; and Tyler Wheeldon - Research Biologist. The MNRF experts provided a detailed review of major themes of misinformation surrounding coyotes, behaviours of coyotes in an urban area as well as trapping and hunting laws. The MNRF clarified the following MYTHS to be untrue: 1. Wolf ancestry makes eastern coyotes less fearful of humans. 2. Eastern coyotes are larger than a German Shepard. 3. Coyotes are superabundant in urban landscapes. 4. With enough effort coyotes could be removed from the town/city. 5. All urban coyotes are involved in conflict with people or pets. 6. There is a high risk of injury / attack to people MNRF officials did agree that there are numerous risks associated with trapping in an urban area and that proper education is important in reducing human-wildlife conflicts. MNRF officials reiterated that coyotes are extremely adaptable animals and that they are not generally seen as a threat to human safety the mere presence or sighting of coyotes is not cause for alarm nor is the injury or death of pets, as they are viewed as a threat the natural prey for coyotes. MNRF officials spoke about the fact that culling coyotes in an urban area has been proven to be unsuccessful. MNRF officials agreed that changes in coyote behaviour such as losing fear of people, approaching or coming into close proximity of people and pets are usually linked to the coyotes becoming habituated to human food sources. MNRF officials confirmed that based on all the information they are aware of pertaining to reports in the east end of Town that it does not appear to be a problem coyote at this time and not be identified as an immediate threat to human safety. They reviewed in detail the behaviour and territory of urban coyotes, which is on average 2-10 km 2. As such, trap and relocation will not work, because the coyotes would return almost immediately, as they are required to be relocated within 1km of the location where they are captured. They also spoke about the intelligence of the animal and that live box/cage traps are highly unsuccessful. MNRF did note that regardless of their research on behavioural attributes of coyotes there may be instances of specific and non-expected anomalies, and therefore reportings and investigations are important if attacks to humans occur. C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 3 of 11

4 It was also confirmed that many jurisdictions have tried and failed in coyote removal efforts, particularly in rural areas as urban areas generally do not undertake lethal removal programs. An example was provided where less than 50% of the coyote population remained, yet within a year the population showed no evidence of decline. Reasons for this include, other transient coyotes moving into the area, removing the dominant breeding female can lead to two or three other pack females breeding and producing larger litters, or two packs could take over the territory where one pack previously roamed. MNRF officials spoke briefly about the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) and the permissions granted to a municipality (and private landowner) to harass, capture, and / or kill wildlife. MNRF officials confirmed that a municipality may use and provide monetary compensation to licensed hunters or trappers to hunt or trap coyotes within their municipal boundaries and/or on private property (with the landowner s permission) to help minimize and prevent human-wildlife conflicts. Input received from the Ministry confirmed that there have been two human deaths from coyotes in North America modern times, compared to 43 deaths as a result of domestic dogs in Canada since 1983, or shooting deaths in Ontario annually. 3. APPLICABLE POLICY OR LEGISLATION Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 41 Private Property Under Section 31 of the FWCA, a landowner has the ability to harass, capture, or kill wildlife on their property, to protect their property. As a last resort, a landowner may humanely kill or trap coyotes that are damaging or about to damage their property. If using a firearm, regulations and local bylaws must be followed. Landowners may also hire an agent to act on their behalf. The permission extends only to the landowner s private property and does not include neighbouring properties. Municipal Property Municipalities can use licensed hunters or trappers to help deal with furbearing mammals (e.g., coyotes, beavers, skunks, etc.) within their municipal boundaries. The municipality sets the terms of arrangements with the hunter or trapper and pays for any services. A municipality does not need a special permit or authorization from the Ministry of Natural Resources to do this. Hired hunters or trappers must, within 24 hours of capture: Euthanize / dispatch the animal, or Release the animal within 1 km of capture location Wildlife Feeding By-law No The intention of the Town s Wildlife Feeding By-law is to reduce / limit the possibility of humanwildlife encounters and conflicts as a result of intentional or unintentional feeding of wildlife. Changes in coyote behaviour such as losing fear of people, approaching or coming into close proximity of people and pets is usually linked to the coyotes becoming habituated to human related food sources. Responsible Pet Ownership By-law No The purpose of the Town s Responsible Pet Ownership By-law is to encourage responsible pet ownership. Under the By-law, cats and dogs are not allowed to roam and must be leashed when C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 4 of 11

5 off the owner s property. This provision helps to ensure cats, dogs, their owners, neighbours, and visitors, are all protected. This by-law is not intended to control wildlife. Clean Yards By-law No The Town s Clean Yards By-law is in place to make certain that refuse is not being hoarded, dumped, or poorly contained on properties. Ensuring properties are maintained to certain minimum standards will help to ensure garbage is not attracting wildlife and that property does not become a nuisance to neighbours or affect the enjoyment of one's own property. Firearms By-law No The purpose of the Town s Firearms By-law is to regulate the discharge of firearms within the Town of Collingwood. Only under certain specified circumstances is a person permitted to discharge a firearm within municipal boundaries. The Town s Firearms By-law provides an exemption (to discharge a firearm) by individuals licensed to trap fur bearing animals within the County of Simcoe under the authority of the Game and Fish Act of Ontario, R.S.O with permission of the owner or tenant of property or at the request of the Police Service for the sole purpose of the destruction of an animal posing a nuisance or threat to inhabitants or to humanely destroy an animal in distress. 4. ANALYSIS Request to undertake an immediate assessment of coyote threat: Officer Assessment: On April 19, 2018 MLEO Zeinstra and MLEO Baker conducted a field investigation of the Georgian Manor Drive area due to concerns regarding the alleged feeding of wildlife and undertook an assessment of the coyote concerns in the area. The alleged feeding of wildlife on properties in this area may be impacting the recent coyote activity. Out first inspection was conducted at Nip Spooner Park where officers were accompanied by a member of Coyote Watch Canada to assist in identifying the differences between coyote tracks and dog tracks. During the investigation, officers identified coyote tracks that appeared to travel through the bush on the east side of the park. Upon further inspection of the bush area, no signs of attractants or possible dens were observed. Officers spoke with 6 people who were walking along Georgian Manor Drive who advised us that they do see coyotes. They are confident that they continue to see the same two coyotes walk from one end of Georgian Manor Drive to the other. These residents advised us that they do not fear for their pets or for themselves, that they are aware that coyotes are present and that they are doing their due diligence as pet/property owners to keep themselves and their pets safe. Some of them also advised that a neighbour has been campaigning throughout the neighbourhood with pamphlets advising people that they should be fearful of coyotes. Over the period of 2.5 hours, the officers approached a total of four properties where recent coyote tracks were visible from the roadway. No immediate concerns such as possible dens or food sources were observed. Officers spoke with property owners regarding the Wildlife Feeding By-law and Clean Yards By-law. Officers were careful not to make any accusations of any particular property, but rather were looking for any possible food sources that would be an attractant. During one of the site inspections, officers spoke with a concerned citizen who has three small dogs and says she has seen coyotes on her property and is concerned for her safety and the safety of her dogs. C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 5 of 11

6 While officers were attending these properties, C.W.C volunteers were approached by a male that was walking a large black dog who advised them that his dog was bitten by an animal at dusk. The media reported this as a coyote attack; however this was not confirmed by the owner. The individual has been approached by a neighbour, who is a vocal supporter of coyote removal, to speak at council. The male noted that he refused to do so as he is not certain that it was a coyote and that he is not concerned. In addition, Officer Baker has conducted a number of vehicle patrols after dusk in the area, and no sightings of coyotes were witnessed. To determine the ideal strategy to address the concerns in the east end, an analysis of the threat needs to be developed. Based on an examination of each alleged coyote encounter in the east end of Collingwood, one common theme emerges the dogs that were injured or killed were unattended and off-leash. Based on information from the MNRF and CWC, coyote conflicts with dogs are a common occurrence in urban areas. It is not uncommon for habituated coyotes to go after small dogs. Even non-habituated coyotes that are fearful of humans may view cats or small dogs as prey. As such, residents need to educate themselves and ensure that they are exercising every reasonable precaution to protect their pets from coyote incidents / encounters which may lead to injury or death. Residents have the ability (and are encouraged) to mitigate potential conflicts with coyotes by doing the following: Keeping pets on leashes and inside at night; Ensuring their property is free of garbage, compost and other attractants; Using deterrents such as motion-sensitive lighting and / or motion activated sprinkler systems; Building fencing around their property or yard. Unfortunately, municipalities are unable to protect pets from all wildlife risks, including threats of coyotes. The Town of Collingwood takes threats of coyotes seriously even though it is not required to control or manage wildlife. An awareness, education, and reporting program has been initiated and implemented by staff within the last two years. Residents have an important role to play to help manage wildlife conflict. Similar to private landowners, the municipality may harass, capture, or kill wildlife that are damaging or about to damage their property. The municipality also has the ability to, but is not required to, hire licensed hunters or trappers for targeted removal of coyotes on private property (with the landowner s permission) or municipal property to help minimize the prevent humanwildlife conflicts. Once the municipality starts hunting or trapping coyotes without clear guidelines, (i.e. confirmed human attack) it risks setting a precedent and compelling the Town to act equally in similar situations / occurrences in the future. The MNRF reviewed tools available to municipalities if threats exist, and it is deteremined appropriate to remove problem coyotes. As noted above, municipal landowners may capture, kill or harass a coyote, if it is reasonably believed to be damaging or is about to damage property (this does not include the mere presence of a coyote); or use an agent to do so. A municipality may use and provide monetary compensation to licensed hunters or trappers to hunt or trap some species of wildlife (including coyotes) within their municipal boundaries. In these cases, the municipality may compensate licensed hunters or trappers for targeted removal of problem coyotes on the private property of municipal residents (with the landowner s permission) or municipal property to help minimize and prevent human-wildlife conflicts. It was further noted that it is illegal to establish a bounty. C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 6 of 11

7 In an attempt to help evaluate the various risks associated with coyotes, staff have developed a revised coyote management / communication plan which includes a detailed response strategy based on particular behaviours (Appendix A) and appropriate actions. Similar strategies have been developed by other municipalities across North America in an attempt to ensure a proper level of response is being taken based on scientific research, a thorough understanding of coyote ecology and biology in urban settings. Coyotes are here to stay so it is important to base each coyote situation / threat on facts instead of emotion. Ensuring that the public is educated on normal coyote behaviour is key in preventing / mitigating wildlife conflicts. Residents have the ability to protect their property using a number of different methods, including trapping. The municipality has the ability to intervene when deemed necessary. If the municipality steps in to remove targeted animals, it should be done as a last option approach when all other control measures have failed and it has been determined (based on facts and research) that there is a serious threat to public safety. As a result of the information received from the assessment of confirmed reports/investigations, Officers, MNRF, CWC, staff and trappers, the current situation in the east end is not deemed an immediate threat of human safety that would support a trap and kill program. Staff do not want to make the situation worse in the area and increase the population or cause risk or injury to people or pets. The following excerpt is from the Coyote Management program prepared by The Humane Society of the United States: Lethal Control Lethal control programs may seem a like a quick fix to problems among coyotes, people and pets. However, removal programs are not effective in reducing coyote populations or addressing the root causes of conflicts. Coyote removal programs are costly (due to the difficulty of catching coyotes) and controversial among the public. When implementing lethal control, it is extremely difficult to ensure that problem-causing coyote(s) will be the ones located and killed. Since firearms are usually unsafe to use in urban and suburban areas, traps (which are by design non-selective for particular coyotes) are generally the method used. Because coyotes are so intelligent and wary of human scent, it is very difficult to catch any coyote in a trap, never mind the problem-causing coyote. Research has shown that when lethally controlled, coyotes exhibit a rebound effect (a surge in their reproductive rates), allowing for quick regeneration of their population numbers. The disruption of their family group structure leads to an increase in the number of females breeding in the population, and the increase in available resources leads to larger litter sizes, earlier breeding ages among females and higher survival rates among pups. This allows coyote populations to bounce back quickly, even when as much as 70% of their numbers are removed through lethal control efforts. For these reasons, lethal programs are not effective at reducing coyote populations, and non-selective coyote trapping programs are not effective at solving conflicts. In addition, coyotes removed from an area will quickly be replaced by transient coyotes looking for a vacant home range. If the root causes of human-coyote conflicts have not been addressed, incoming coyotes may quickly become nuisance coyotes as well. It is far better to have well-behaved resident coyotes who will hold territories and keep transients C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 7 of 11

8 at bay then to risk having to deal with newcomers who do not know the rules. Lethal responses (coyote removal) should be considered only in the event of an unprovoked, confirmed attack on a human. If implemented, lethal control efforts should focus on the offending coyote(s) only, rather than the coyote population at large. This requires significant surveillance efforts to make sure that the correct animal(s) is targeted and removed. Lethal control should be considered as only one of a suite of management interventions (e.g. removal of attractants, hazing, etc.) that involve an array of humane and non-lethal measures. It is worth remarking that if non-lethal control techniques are effective enough to reduce human-coyote interactions and conflicts to acceptable levels, then the lethal control limited option may remain in the toolbox without being used. The following is the analysis of the options available to remove an immediate threat when it is warranted based on the Response Strategy within the Plan. Trap & Kill (Locate/Eliminate) Pros Provides short-term relief Immediate results / relief (leg-hold, snare) Cons Cost Should only be done by trained professionals (i.e. licensed trappers) Risk of injury to coyote, pets and people (if leg-hold or snare trap used) Low success rate using a live box/cage traps Town setting a precedent only programs that have been implemented are based on bites to humans Difficult in urban setting (Town-owned land or private property with the owner(s) permission) Not generally supported by MNRF if no immediate threat, as supported by biologists or other wildlife experts, and a portion of the community Residents may not be able to use parks and / or trails where trapping is occurring Does not address root cause of coyote conflicts New coyotes will take their place and population could increase Difficult to find a qualified trapper to undertake this sensitive work Considerations May require use of a firearm in an urban area May require notice to be provided to area residents Town may be liable if person or pet is injured Trap & Release Pros Provides short-term relief Cons Cost Coyotes will return as must relocate within 1 km (coyotes territory is 10 km 2 ) Should only be done by trained professionals (i.e. licensed trappers) Risk of injury to coyote, pets and people (if leg-hold or snare trap used) C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 8 of 11

9 Low success rate using a live box/cage traps Town setting a precedent only programs that have been implemented are based on bites to humans Difficult in urban setting (Town-owned land or private property with the owner(s) permission) Not generally supported by MNRF if no immediate threat, as supported by biologists or other wildlife experts, and a portion of the community Residents may not be able to use parks and / or trails where trapping is occurring Does not address root cause of coyote conflicts New coyotes will take their place and population could increase Difficult to find a qualified trapper to undertake this sensitive work Considerations May require notice to be provided to area residents Town may be liable if person or pet is injured Aversion Conditioning (aka Hazing) Pros Cost Can be done by anyone Can be applied in any environment (home, trails, parks etc.) Supported by MNRF and wildlife experts Cons Takes time and consistency Needs community support to be effective May not be effective if coyote has become too habituated to humans Public needs to be educated on proper hazing techniques Motion Lights Pros Can be used on public or private property May help in deterring coyotes from entering / using property Cost No risk of injury to pets and / or people Cons Coyotes are adaptable animals if there are no consequences, the coyotes may continue to exploit an area Does not address why a coyote may be staying within a certain area - coyote may continue to be seen / encountered Considerations Contractor may need to be hired - some parks may not have a power source Solar-powered motion lights may be used Motion Activity Sprinkler System Pros Can be used on private property May help in deterring some coyotes from entering onto the property Cost C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 9 of 11

10 No risk of injury to pets and/or people Cons Does not address why a coyote may be staying within a certain area Can only be used during certain times of the year (spring, summer, fall) Wildlife Proofing Residence / Parks Pros Can be done by landowner May help in deterring coyotes from entering / using property Cost No risk of injury to pets and / or people Effective Cons Requires vigilance and participation of landowners Requires some knowledge of coyotes and their behaviours In response to the coyote concerns in the east end of Collingwood and direction from Council, the following additional actions have been taken by staff: Increased patrols of the affected area; Conducted an analysis of the various management / control options available to the Town; Continued to engage with local residents concerning the coyote situation in Collingwood; Consulted with local trappers licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry; Engaged subject matter experts from appropriate agencies (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ontario Provincial Police, and Coyote Watch Canada); Held a public information session with a guest speaker from Coyote Watch Canada; Reviewed and installed additional coyote signage; and, Updated our coyote reporting form, including asking residents to provide contact information and photos (where possible) to assist with cataloguing of individual coyotes in each area. Coyote Watch Canada has a program to assist communities. Collingwood has implemented a number of strategies, but does not have the resources or time to undertake the needed training and education programs. A letter of services is attached as Appendix B. Conclusion Staff does not recommend implementing a trapping program unless the problem coyotes meet the criteria within the updated coyote management / communication plan. Human safety is a priority and the natural ecology. Staff recommend proceeding immediately with the communication plan as outlined in Schedule A, including but not limited to: Establishing a hotline for immediate response to coyote issues Establish education sessions on coyotes and hazing techniques Direct mailing to residents in the east end, and concerned areas Provide appropriate Officer training Develop radio advertisements Increase signage throughout town Staff also recommend retaining the services of Coyote Watch Canada to help undertake components of their program to meet the needs of the updated Plan, including facilitating education and training programs, and developing a local coyote response team to assist staff, residents and potentially the OPP. C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 10 of 11

11 Staff will also be requesting assistance from local veterinarians and physicians to report any activities or concerns they are witnessing/addressing as it may pertain to coyote attacks or encounters. 5. EFFECT ON TOWN FINANCES Financial implications directly or indirectly for a trapping program within a specific area (i.e. east end of Collingwood) are estimated at upwards of $10,000, depending on the length of time needed to capture the target coyote. Rate of success unknown. Other financial implications are estimated at $3000 and predominantly involve the cost of staff time for training, preparation of education tools, advertising, establishing a hotline, and increased signage. Coyote Watch Canada services, to be agreed upon by staff, are estimated at an upset limit of $3, There are no additional funds allocated within the by-law enforcement or animal control budgets. All costs would be allocated from the administration contingency account for APPENDICES & OTHER RESOURCES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Resource 1 Resource 2 Resource 3 Update Coyote Management / Communication Plan Coyote Watch Canada Services MNRF Information PowerPoint Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry - Preventing and managing conflicts with coyotes, wolves and foxes: Coyote Watch Canada Humane Society of the United States. SIGNATURES Prepared with the assistance of: Department Head: Adam Harrod, MLEO III Town of Collingwood Sara Almas, Clerk Town of Collingwood C Coyote Management Threat Assessment / Options Page 11 of 11

12 Town of Collingwood 97 Hurontario Street, PO Box 157 Collingwood ON, L9Y 3Z5 Update: April 30 th, 2018 Coyote Management / Communication Plan Situation / Principles The Town of Collingwood desires to identify and achieve a balance between the importance of human safety as a priority and the natural ecology. Safety is a priority in managing human-coyote interactions. The Town of Collingwood has seen an increase in the number of coyote sightings and reports within the last few years. This coyote management and communication plan is based on scientific research, understanding of coyote ecology and biology in an urban setting and the best known management practices and management tools. Objectives Educate the public on normal coyote behaviour, how to prevent coyote/human and coyote/pet conflicts and interactions and help people to feel safe in their neighbourhoods by reducing public fear of coyotes. Develop a strategy for coyote conflicts to address problematic coyote behaviours (such as aggression towards people and attacks on pets and humans) and the problematic human behaviours (intentionally or unintentionally feeding coyotes, and unattended pets outside) that contribute to conflicts. Achieve a community-wide program that involves residents, which is necessary for achieving co-existence among people, coyotes and pets. Removal programs should only be considered based on a defined set of behaviours and classification. Definitions COEXISTENCE: Humans and coyotes exist together. Humans take an active role in helping coyotes in their community stay wild by removing attractants, taking responsibility for pet safety, hazing coyotes in their neighborhood and learning about coyote ecology and behavior. ENCOUNTER: A direct meeting between humans and coyotes with no physical contact and which is without incident. HAZING: A method of negative association. When a coyote or other animal is in an area where it is not wanted, scaring it away will make it less likely to return. Hazing can include making loud noises (yelling, not screaming), waving arms, popping open an umbrella, shaking car keys or other noisy objects, throwing objects near, but not at the animal. It is also commonly referred to as aversion conditioning or escape conditioning. HUMAN ATTACK: A human is bitten by a coyote. Provoked: An attack where the involved human encourages the coyote to engage. Examples include a human hand-feeding a coyote, approaching a coyote with pups or intervening in a coyote attack on a pet. Unprovoked: An attack where the involved human does not encourage the coyote to engage.

13 Coyote Biology / Behaviour INCIDENT: A conflict between a human and a coyote where the coyote exhibits any of the following behaviors: growling, baring teeth, lunging or making physical contact with the person. A human is not bitten. LIVESTOCK LOSS/DEPREDATION: Coyote(s) kills or injures livestock. LOCATE/ELIMINATE: A trapping program to be implemented only if absolutely necessary, based on the strategy identified herein to locate and trap a problem coyote to eliminate threat based on the advice sought by staff from a recognized wildlife expert. Proceeding with such a program will be at the full discretion of staff in consultation with the CAO, unless Council direction is received or requested by Staff. An evaluation of all facts of the situation/event to be confirmed and investigated prior to proceeding, including an understanding of the area and all associated risks. OBSERVATION: The act of noticing signs of coyotes, such as tracks, scat, or vocalizations, but without visual observation of the coyotes. PET ATTACK: Coyote kills or injures a domestic pet. Attended: Pet is on a leash less than six feet in length or is in the presence of a person less than six feet away. Unattended: Pet is free-roaming, walking off-leash more than six feet from a person, or on a leash longer than six feet. SIGHTING: A visual observation of a coyote. A sighting may occur at any time of the day or night. The coyote species in Ontario is the eastern coyote. The eastern coyote is a relatively recent addition to the biodiversity of Ontario. The species is the result of hybridization between western coyotes from the prairies and eastern wolves. It now occupies developed urban and agricultural areas of Ontario. They are on average 40 pounds and generally appear larger than they actually are because of their long legs and thick coats. The small amount of DNA they share with wolves does not affect their behaviour in terms of humans safely coexisting with this highly adaptable and intelligent canid. Since coyotes are naturally very skittish and afraid of humans, they are not regularly seen. Thus, their signs (including prints, scat and vocalizations) may be a better indicator of their presence. Coyote prints are similar to those of a domestic dog s, but are usually observed in a straight line, as opposed to the meandering path of domestic dog tracks. More commonly, coyote howling or other vocalizations may be heard. Coyotes produce a variety of sounds including howls, barks, whines and yips, to communicate with one another and defend their territory. Small groups of coyotes (two - three) can distort their voices and sound like a group of 20. Coyotes also use scat (feces) to communicate by depositing it in the middle of a trail or on the edge of their territory. Coyote scat is similar to dog scat in size and appearance, but unlike dog scat, it is rope-like and typically filled with hairs, seeds and bones. Diet: Coyotes are opportunistic omnivores with great flexibility in their diet. They generally hunt small mammals such as mice, rats, moles, and rabbits, but will also eat fruit and berries and will even scavenge road-killed animals. In urban areas, coyotes are also known to eat pet food, unsecured garbage and compost. They may also prey on unattended domestic pets such as cats and small dogs if given the opportunity. This does not indicate a danger to humans, but is rather a natural coyote behavior. This behavior can be prevented by reducing human-associated food attractants in urban areas and not letting pets outside unattended unless protected by a coyote-proof enclosure or fence. Social Structure: Most coyotes (called resident coyotes) live in family groups with one breeding pair and one to four other related individuals. Coyotes do not hunt in packs, but

14 work together to defend their territory from other coyote family groups. Other coyotes (called transient coyotes) live alone or as an isolated mated pair. Coyotes mate once per year, during their breeding season, which occurs from January through March. During the pup season (April August), the breeding pair will give birth to pups, typically in April or May. Litter size depends on available resources and the number of coyotes in the area. The average litter size is four to seven pups. Coyotes will place their pups in a den for the first six weeks, after which the pups will learn to hunt with their parents. Coyote dens are found in logs, burrows, banks, rock crevices and underbrush, as well as in open areas. During dispersal season (September December), the pups from the previous year (yearlings) will leave the family group and become transient coyotes in search of a new home range. Habitat: Coyotes are naturally diurnal and are most active at dawn and dusk, but often shift to more nocturnal activity in urban and suburban areas in an effort to avoid people. Coyotes prefer open space and natural preserve areas over human-dominated landscapes, but are extremely adept at living in proximity to people. Coyotes thrive in these areas because food, water, and shelter are abundant. Home range sizes vary for each individual coyote. Research has shown that home range sizes for resident urban coyotes average 2-10km 2, while transient coyotes have larger home ranges. Coyote Attractants 1. FOOD: Urban areas provide a bounty of natural food choices for coyotes, who primarily eat rodents such as mice and rats. However, coyotes can be further attracted into suburban neighborhoods by human-associated food such as pet food, unsecured compost or trash, and fallen fruit in yards. Intentional and unintentional feeding can lead coyotes to associate humans with sources of food, which can result in negative interactions among coyotes, people and pets. To reduce food attractants in urban and suburban areas: a. Never hand-feed or otherwise deliberately feed a coyote. b. Avoid feeding pets outside. Remove sources of pet food and water. If feeding pets outside is necessary, remove the bowl and any leftover food promptly. c. Never compost any meat or dairy, unless the compost is fully secured. d. Maintain good housekeeping, such as regularly raking areas around bird feeders, to help discourage coyote activity near residences. e. Remove fallen fruit from the ground. f. Keep trash in high-quality containers with tight-fitting lids. Only place the cans curbside the morning of collection. If you leave them out overnight, trash cans are more likely to be tipped over and broken into. g. Bag especially attractive food wastes such as meat scraps or leftover pet food. If it is several days before garbage will be picked up, freeze temporarily or take to a dumpster or other secure storage container. 2. WATER: Urban areas provide a year-round supply of water in the form of storm water impoundments and channels, artificial lakes, irrigation, pet water dishes, etc., which support both coyotes and their prey. In dry conditions, water can be as alluring as food, so remove water bowls set outside for pets and make watering cans unavailable. 3. ACCESS TO SHELTER: Parks, greenbelts, open spaces, golf courses, buildings, sheds, decks and crawl spaces, etc., increase the amount and variability of cover for coyotes. They allow coyotes to safely and easily remain close to people, pets, homes and businesses without detection. In the spring, when coyotes give birth and begin to raise young, they concentrate their activities around dens or burrows in which their young are sheltered. Coyotes may take advantage of available spaces under sheds or decks for use as a den, bringing them into close contact with people and pets. 4. UNATTENDED PETS: Pets are a normal part of an urban landscape. Within their

15 territory, coyotes may consider pets as potential prey or potential competitors. a. Free-roaming pets, especially cats and sometimes small dogs, may attract coyotes into neighborhoods. The best way to minimize risk to pets is to not leave them outside unattended. b. Cats. Coyotes primarily eat small mammals such as mice and rats, but will also prey on slightly larger mammals such as rabbits and groundhogs. Approximately the same size as a groundhog or rabbit, free-roaming outdoor cats may also be seen as eligible prey items by coyotes. It is important to note that attacks on cats are normal coyote behavior and do not indicate a danger for people. The only way to protect cats from coyotes (and the other dangers of outdoor life such as cars, disease, dogs and other wildlife) is to keep cats indoors (or only let them outside in a secure enclosure or when accompanied by a person and under the control of a leash and harness). c. Feral cats. People who feed feral cats are often concerned that coyotes might prey on the cats. These concerns are well founded, as coyotes will be attracted to both the outdoor pet food and the cats themselves as prey. Although there is no sure way to protect feral cats from coyotes, the following tips can be helpful: i. Feed cats only during the day and at a set time and pick up any leftovers immediately. ii. Provide escape routes for cats. iii. Haze coyotes seen on the property. Making them feel uncomfortable will encourage them to stay out of the area. d. Dogs are also vulnerable to coyote confrontations. These incidents generally involve coyotes who are accustomed or habituated to people, usually due to wildlife feeding, or coyotes who are protecting their territory and pups, usually during breeding season. i. Small, unattended dogs may be seen as potential prey for coyotes. It is important to either keep dogs on a leash six feet long or shorter when outdoors or to stay within six feet of them when outside. Coyotes may view a dog on a leash longer than six feet as an unattended pet. Attacks on unattended, small dogs are normal coyote behavior and do not indicate a danger for people. ii. Although attacks on larger dogs are rarer, coyotes will sometimes go after a large dog when they feel that their territory is threatened. This generally occurs during the coyote breeding season, which takes place from January through March. During this time, it is especially important not to let dogs outside unattended and to keep them on leashes (six feet long or less) when in public areas. iii. Fences can be used to keep coyotes out of residential yards, but they must be coyote-proof. Coyote-proof fences are at least eight feet tall and made of a material that coyotes cannot climb or at least six feet tall with a protective device on top such as a coyote roller (coyoteroller.com) that rolls off any coyotes (and dogs) that try to scramble over the fence. To prevent coyotes from digging under a fence, it should extend underground at least twelve inches or include an L-shaped mesh apron that extends outward at least 18 inches and is secured with landscape staples. e. Other domestic animals kept outside, such as chickens and rabbits, may also be viewed as prey by coyotes. Protect poultry or other outdoor animals from coyotes, and other predators with protective fencing both structural and electric, by ensuring that they are confined in sturdy cages or pens each evening and by using livestockguarding animals where possible.

16 Strategy Coyote Behaviour Classification Response Coyote heard; scat or prints seen Observation Distribute educational material and information on normal coyote behavior. Coyote seen moving through area (day or night) Sighting Distribute educational material and information on normal coyote behavior. Coyote seen resting in area (day or night) Coyote entering a yard (no person present outside) Coyote following or approaching a person with no incident Coyote following or approaching a person and pet with no incident Coyote entering a yard with pets, no incident Coyote entering a yard with people and pets, no pet attack occurring Coyote injures or kills unattended pet in back yard (distance greater than 6 from human) Coyote injures or kills pet off-leash in open space area Coyote injures or kills livestock Coyote injures or kills pet off leash with human nearby (within six feet) Sighting Sighting Encounter Encounter Encounter Encounter Unattended Pet Attack Unattended Pet Attack Livestock Loss/Depredation Attended Pet Attack If area frequented by people (i.e. park), educate on normal coyote behavior and provide hazing information. Look for and eliminate (if possible) any attractants in area where sighting occurred. Educate on normal coyote behavior and provide hazing information. Complete yard audit. Educate on normal coyote behavior and provide hazing information. Look for and eliminate any attractants in area where encounter occurred. Provide information on hazing techniques and encourage responsible pet ownership. In an open area, post coyote sign(s) to alert other residents. If it is pup season and there is a known den nearby, consider blocking off the path or area until pup season in over. Educate on coyote attractants and responsible pet ownership. Provide information on hazing techniques and complete yard audit. Educate on coyote attractants and responsible pet ownership. Provide information on hazing techniques and complete yard audit. Gather information on specific animals involved and reported circumstances. Educate on coyote attractants and responsible pet ownership. Provide information on hazing techniques and complete yard audit. Gather information on specific animals involved and reported circumstances. Educate on responsible pet ownership and hazing. Look for and eliminate (if possible) any attractants in area where incident occurred. Post coyote sign(s) in open area to alert other residents. If it is pup season and there is a known den nearby, consider blocking off the path or area until pup season is over. Develop hazing team in area. Levy fines (for leash law violations) when appropriate. Gather information on specific animals involved and reported circumstances. Educate on proper livestock husbandry (including the use of secure enclosures, livestock guarding animals, and/or proper fencing). Gather information on specific animals involved and reported circumstances. Educate on responsible pet ownership, coyote attractants, and hazing. Perform yard / neighborhood / public area audit. Post coyote sign(s) and / or send educational materials to residents in the area. Implement high intensity hazing techniques (by Animal Control Officers, police, trained volunteer groups etc.). If multiple confirmed incidents have occurred in the same vicinity within a short amount of time, locate/elimination of problem coyote may be required.

17 Coyote aggressive toward person, showing teeth, back fur raised, lunging, nipping without contact Coyote has bitten human (an attack where the involved human does not encourage the coyote to engage) Coyote has bitten human (human encouraged coyote to engage by hand feeding, approaching coyote with pups, intervening during pet attack, etc.) Incident Unprovoked Human Attack Provoked Human Attack Provoked Human Attack Gather information about incident and reported circumstances. Educate on responsible pet ownership (if applicable), coyote attractants, and hazing. Perform yard / neighborhood / public area audit. Post coyote sign(s) and / or send educational materials to residents in the area. Implement high-intensity hazing techniques (Animal Control Officers, police, trained volunteer groups etc.) If confirmed multiple incidents have occurred in the same vicinity within a short amount of time, locate and elimination of problem coyote may be required. Identify and gather information on all details of attack (including action of victim before and after attack, action of victim towards coyote, and how incident was resolved). Any human bitten by a coyote(s) will need to seek the advice of their physician concerning the administration of a post exposure rabies vaccination. Animal Control Staff will notify the Clerk and / or CAO, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Town staff will work with the OPP and / or MNRF to locate and eliminate the responsible coyote, which will be tested for rabies, and also be given a full necropsy to determine general health and whether feeding was involved. Town staff will educate residents on coyote attractants, hazing, and responsible pet ownership. Town staff will also perform yard / neighborhood / public area audit. Implement high-intensity hazing techniques (Animal Control Officers, police, trained volunteer groups etc.). Identify and gather information on all details of attack (including action of victim before and after attack, whether feeding or pets were involved, action of victim towards coyote, and how incident was resolved). Any human bitten by a coyote(s) will need to seek the advice of their physician concerning the administration of a post exposure rabies vaccination. When known, animal control staff will notify the Clerk and / or CAO, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Town staff will work with the OPP and / or MNRF to locate and eliminate the responsible coyote, which will be tested for rabies, and also be given a full necropsy to determine general health and whether feeding was involved. Town staff will educate residents on coyote attractants, hazing, and responsible pet ownership. Town staff will also perform yard / neighborhood / public area audit. Fines (for wildlife feeding and / or leash law violations) when appropriate. Implement high-intensity hazing techniques (Animal Control Officers, police, trained volunteer groups etc.) Locate/Eliminate Control Locate/eliminate trapping control programs may seem a like a quick fix to problems among coyotes, people and pets. However, removal programs are not effective in reducing coyote populations or addressing the root causes of conflicts. Coyote removal programs are costly due to the difficulty of catching coyotes, and controversial among the public. When implementing such control, it is extremely difficult to ensure that problem-causing coyotes will be the ones located and relocated/killed. Since firearms are usually unsafe to use in urban and suburban areas, traps, which are by design non-selective for particular coyotes, are generally the method used. Because coyotes are so intelligent and wary of human scent, it is very difficult to catch any coyote in a trap, even more so the problemcausing coyote. Research has shown that when lethally controlled, coyotes exhibit a rebound effect (a surge in their reproductive rates), allowing for quick regeneration of their population numbers. The disruption of their family group structure leads to an increase in the number of

18 Communications Audiences All Public females breeding in the population, and the increase in available resources leads to larger litter sizes, earlier breeding ages among females and higher survival rates among pups. This allows coyote populations to bounce back quickly, even when as much as 70% of their numbers are removed through lethal control efforts. For these reasons, lethal programs are not effective at reducing coyote populations, and non-selective coyote trapping programs are not effective at solving conflicts. In addition, coyotes removed from an area will quickly be replaced by transient coyotes looking for a vacant home range. If the root causes of human-coyote conflicts have not been addressed, incoming coyotes may quickly become nuisance coyotes as well. It is far better to have well-behaved resident coyotes that will hold territories and keep transients at bay then to risk having to deal with newcomers who do not know the rules. Lethal responses (coyote removal) should be considered only in the event of an unprovoked, confirmed attack on a human, unless the situation within the strategy warrants particularly consideration. If implemented, lethal control efforts should focus on the offending coyotes only, rather than the coyote population at large. This requires significant surveillance efforts to make sure that the correct animal is targeted and removed. Lethal control should be considered as only one of a suite of management interventions (e.g. removal of attractants, hazing, etc.) that involve an array of humane and non-lethal measures. It is worth remarking that if non-lethal control techniques are effective enough to reduce human-coyote interactions and conflicts to acceptable levels, then the lethal control limited option may remain in the toolbox without being used. Understanding Target Audience Messaging: Supportive of co-existence May have had frequent sightings May consider themselves animal lovers Might be aware of lack of success of removal methods Messaging: Don t support co-existence programs May have had a pet lost or injured Live near bush or waterfront Have had frequent sightings May have heard second-hand stories about dangers of coyotes Messages Normal & abnormal coyote behaviour Human safety is the Town s priority while respecting the natural ecology Don t provide food sources for coyotes or other wild animals, intentionally or unintentionally. Hazing techniques Education/resources on handling potential coyote conflict Educating residents on reporting incidents Promote/enforce bylaw that prohibits feeding of wildlife Educate private property owners on their ability to trap and remove problem coyotes in accordance with municipal, provincial and federal laws. Monitoring & Collecting Data Monitoring and data collection are critical components of an effective coyote management plan. This is best accomplished with input from both residents and officials using the coyote online reporting form or contacting Animal Control directly. The purpose of monitoring human-coyote interactions is to document where coyotes are frequently seen, to count how many coyotes are within an area and to identify human-coyote conflict hotspots. Gathering specific data on incidents will allow for targeting of educational campaigns and conflict mitigation efforts, as well as the ability to measure success in

19 reducing conflicts over time. Communication Medium Encourage participation and assistance from local veterinarians, physicians, wildlife experts to report and collaborate with the Town when incidents or situations arise, to determine if changes in the strategy need to be identified/considered. Enhance website information Coyote Behaviour: what s abnormal and what s normal Seasonal behaviour or factors that may increase sightings FAQs Messaging as noted above Provide printable brochure of information/tips Size that can be folded and added to stoop & scoop bags Small laminated cards that can hang on dog leash Provide information/access to residents (as deemed appropriate) Establish a hotline Tax bill insert Social media E-newsletter Lobby screen Radio / tv advertisements/interviews Paid advertising Brochure holders at parks/locations with frequent sightings Information Session (as deemed appropriate) Facilitate events with wildlife experts Optional considerations: Provide tips, maybe weekly in Town Page during high sighting times Encourage walking clubs larger numbers deter coyotes, get to know your neighbours, exercise Consider public relation / safety awareness tools (i.e whistles, noise makers) Resources Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Coyote Watch Canada City of Burlington Humane Society of the United States

20 Wildlife Coexistence Programme Candidate, Coyote Watch Canada (CWC) has an excellent framework and model of what a compassionate wildlife community looks like for the City of Niagara Falls (NF). NF is now considered a flagship model by other communities nationwide to follow when creating their own Living with Coyotes (Canids) Coexistence Programme. Recognizing the beneficial presence of coyotes in the landscape in conjunction with providing public wildlife education and safety programs is a proven long term sustainable approach that readily adopts non-lethal coexistence. The challenge government officials face when moving away from lethal response to address human-wildlife conflict is the willingness to begin the process to develop sustainable, non-lethal policies. There are measurable benefits for stakeholders that become active participants in our CWC Community partnerships. Popular agency and community support includes essential resources such as sign designs and other critical print materials such as wildlife education pamphlets and our door-hangers that are available to interested partners for reprint at no cost. When considering a coexistence programme that promotes non-lethal, educational, safety protocol for people and wildlife, having these no-cost downloadable resources available helps in the process. Why lethal responses such as trapping and hunting are not a realistic long term solution. A critical overview The indiscriminate killing of coyotes disrupts stable pack structure and does not help to identify or change the human activities that attract coyotes and fox into areas where conflict is occurring. Sightings can be linked to foraging for food and territorial behaviour. Short term lethal actions such as trapping and hunting, do not address critical issues that may be inherent in a community. Killing coyotes, wolves and foxes 1 CWC

21 provides a vacancy in the habitat encouraging a new canid or several, to move in. Removing a keystone species such as the coyote from the ecosystem potentially may have a negative cascade effect on smaller mammals with an increase in rodent populations. The mishandling of garbage and green bin composting, the feeding of wildlife, free roaming pets, lack of immediate dead stock removal, baiting coyotes, and feeding pets outdoors can have a significant impact on how wildlife responds and interacts with humans and their pets. All of these mitigating factors can be prevented through direct education and awareness objectives. The mere sighting of a coyote in a community does not signify an increase in population. Repeat sightings in a specific location serves as an indicator that people may intentionally or unintentionally be feeding wildlife. Wildlife navigates daily throughout our communities. Coyotes often times go unnoticed. When territories are destroyed with infrastructure growth new habitat must be established which increases wildlife sightings and encounters. The lack of landscape may impact wildlife migration, dispersal and survival. Canids are territorial by nature and rely on an established homeland range to safely raise their families, secure shelter and forage for food. Wildlife Proofing the Backyard Birdfeeder Backyard birdfeeders are a significant wildlife attractant. Predatory birds such as eagles, hawks and owls can readily utilize small cats and dogs as prey sources. Attracting target animals to a backyard birdfeeder also invites other species such as coyotes to drop in too. Keeping the wild in coyote appropriate behaviours such as avoiding humans and relying on natural prey, not human hand-outs is our best approach to effectively support local fauna. Keeping the ground underneath a birdfeeder clean of seed debris and feces is a proactive preventative step that discourages visits and foraging by predators. Consider a Feeding Wildlife By-law An enforcement tool such as a feeding wildlife by-law or ordinance provides preventative and educational guidelines that encourage the public to safely live with coyotes in their community. A simple adjustment such as ensuring pets are leashed and never left outdoors unattended can prevent negative pet and wildlife encounters. Aversion conditioning or hazing coyotes that have demonstrated a close proximity tolerance to people where feeding has occurred is a very effective method for reshaping appropriate coyote behaviour. Aversion conditioning and hazing has been effectively practiced by CWC for the City of Niagara Falls and in many other partner communities. CWC is available for consultation in partnership with local community members, government agencies and City council. Several years ago, the Town of Collingwood consulted with CWC regarding the current Feeding Wildlife By-law. 2 CWC

22 CWC Compassionate Wildlife Community Programme Resources Living with Coyotes (Wildlife) Coexistence Plan We deliver educational presentations that teach wildlife safety and coyote ecology such as our PAWS Approach, Cool Canids and High Five for Safety. Educational institutions (elementary to university level learners, Canada Post, Real Estate, naturalist clubs, nonprofit organizations across Ontario and nationwide benefit from our hands on, field tested strategies which include what to do if approached by a coyote. Highlights of our program Facilitate the foundation of a Humane Wildlife Strategy Framework that employs four fundamental cornerstones: investigation, prevention, education and enforcement Mobilizing a volunteer Canid Response Team (CRT) Example, the City of Niagara Falls By-Law depart., Niagara Parks Police, Niagara Falls Humane Society and CWC are all an active aspect of the CRT Niagara Assisting in the set up for an effective information pathway for canid reports Sighting/mapping digital consultation Partnerships with local and national agencies- looking at the City of Niagara Falls programme, local residents, City of Niagara Falls staff, Niagara Parks Police, Niagara Falls Humane Society Education initiatives and outreach Citizen science and research opportunities CWC science advisory members and advisory council experts Monitoring sighting reports Free download PDF s- Wildlife Coexistence educational literature, Keeping Coyotes Away pamphlets, Wildlife Proofing Tip Sheet, provincially endorsed sign/poster template, Eastern Coyote fact sheet and much more Instructional Support- including workshops and training for first response personnel, agency team building, field investigation protocol, hazing crew training Community Volunteer Recruitment Feeding Wildlife By-law Providing seasonal awareness alerts regarding wolf/coyote/fox behaviour to municipalities and media outlets and a 24 hour coyote hot line Provided for your reference are several documents including the link to the City of Niagara Falls website that has a free download PDF Coyote Brochure: The following YouTube testimonial from Mayor Diodati of Niagara Falls: 3 CWC

23 Creating and implementing a sustainable, non-lethal wildlife program with a strong focus in coexisting with coyotes is compassionate and proves cost effective. Building partnerships with community members that foster wildlife diversity is an empowering experience for stakeholders when education, safety and appreciation are the key goals. We look forward to hearing from you and assisting in any capacity that we can to answer any queries or help you with identifying the first steps necessary to implement a Living with Coyotes (Wildlife) Programme. Sincerely, Lesley Sampson, Founding Executive Director Coyote Watch Canada 4 CWC

24 Human-Wildlife Conflicts Coyote Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry MIDHURST DISTRICT Provided for Information to the Town of Collingwood Do Not Distribute