Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Individual study: Evaluating lethal and nonlethal management options for urban coyotes

Published source details

Breck S.W., Poessel S.A. & Bonnell M.A. (2017) Evaluating lethal and nonlethal management options for urban coyotes. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 11, 133–145


This study is summarised as evidence for the intervention(s) shown on the right. The icon shows which synopsis it is relevant to.

Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

A replicated, controlled study in 2014 of four urban areas in Colorado, USA (Breck et al. 2017) found that attempts to scare away coyotes Canis latrans did not decrease their use of areas also frequently used by people. On trails frequently travelled by people, the overlap between coyote and human activity was similar where community-level programmes were run to scare coyotes and where programmes were not run (data presented as coefficients of overlap, incorporating frequency and timing of use). On trails with less human traffic, overlap between coyote and human activity was greater where programmes were run than where they were not run. These differences were not tested for statistical significance. Four urban park and open space areas were studied. In two, community-level programmes were run. These primarily involved shouting, throwing objects, and/or aggressively approaching coyotes. Activities were promoted by signs, social media, emailing to multiple recipients, education stations and an online video. Programmes were not run in the two control areas. Coyote and human use of trails were monitored using five camera traps in each area for a 3–4-week period, generating >50,000 independent records of people and coyotes.

(Summarised by Nick Littlewood)