Pasadena City Council
July 17, 2023

REQUEST FOR DIRECTION TO RESPONDTO CONCERNS RELATED TO HUMAN-COYOTE INTERACTIONSCity Council Item No. 9July 17, 2023 Public Health DepartmentUrban Wildlife Management Plan•Urban Wildlife Management Plan (UWMP) adopted by City Council in August 2019>Provides guidance for staff; does not apply to residents, businesses, or homeowner associations>Strategy balances wildlife respect and protection while also protecting public safety>Three-pronged approachPublic educationEnforcement of lawsCategorization of coyote interactions to correctly identify and respond to threats>Requires active community participation2 Public Health DepartmentUrban Wildlife Management Plan•The City places a high value on wildlife>Focus on preventing human-wildlife conflict>When conflicts emerge, UWMP recommends corrective measures that do not harm wildlife or habitat•Lethal control is tool of last resort reserved for:>Confirmed, unprovoked attack on a human>Other threat to human health or safety•City would consult with CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) to conduct abatement3 Public Health DepartmentUrban Wildlife Management Plan•Relevant state regulations are complex>Non-game mammals must be released or humanely euthanized at trap location>Allows property owners to trap>Requires a trap ID from CDFW>Requires written consent from all property owners within 150 feet of trap location>Several state restrictions on trapping methods•City ordinance prohibits use of firearms•Residents should seek CDFW guidance and engage certified professionals4 Public Health Department
5 Urban Wildlife Management PlanThreat LevelAssessment Response Responding AgencyGreen Normal coyote behavior•Public education on normal coyote behavior, hazing techniques, and pet safety•City staff•Pasadena HumaneYellow Mildly habituated coyote behavior•Public education on normal coyote behavior and pet safety, yard audit checklist, and teaching aggressive hazing techniques•City staff•Pasadena HumaneOrange Aggressive, habituated coyote behavior•Public education on normal coyote behavior and pet safety, yard audit checklist, and teaching aggressive hazing techniques•Community meetings to raise public awareness and education•City staff•Pasadena HumaneRed Provoked or unprovoked attack requiring investigation and action•All response actions listed in Level Orange•Locate and abate the responsible coyote(s)•City staff•Pasadena Humane•CA Fish & Wildlife5 Public Health DepartmentUrban Wildlife Management Plan•Community members are encouraged to report coyote concerns to:>Citizen Service Center (626) 744-7311>Pasadena Humane (626) 792-7151>Pasadena Police Department (626) 744-4241 for non-emergencies or 911 for emergencies•PPHD reviews CSC and Pasadena Humane call data to assess trends in coyote concerns6 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Lethal control is not an effective strategy for reducing human-coyote conflicts 7 Source: Humane Society of the United States, 2023
Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•“Rebound effect” or “compensatory reproduction”>Found in coyote research in the 1970s and 1980s•Coyote family>One breeding alpha female producing one litter per year with an average of six pups>Litter size is generally between 4 to 7 pups and is tied to nutritional status and coyote population density8 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Juveniles leave the pack between 9 to 11 months becoming transients>Move between narrow undefended zones between pack territories>Removing coyotes reduces the ability of a pack to defend an area>Immigration of transients replenishes population•If alpha male or female are killed, ovulation is triggered in other breeding age females >Resulting in an increase in number and size of litters9 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Gese (2005) studied coyotes in Colorado>Compared impact of lethal control on population density subject to trapping and killing in one area>Used coyotes in a nearby area as a control•Where lethal control was used, population density decreased by as much as 70%>Vacancies in the pack were quickly filled by immigrating coyotes>Within 8 months, the population density within the removal area had fully recovered10 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Kilgo (2017) studied coyotes in southeastern US>Found coyotes in areas where exploitation was occurring to have higher reproduction rate>Primarily due to high immigration of juvenile males•Conclusions>It would be impossible to implement a trapping program over a sufficiently large area to limit the pool of immigrant coyotes>Lethal control efforts are unlikely to reduce coyote populations for longer than a few months11 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Non-lethal control can be effective if they are consistently and correctly applied>Hazing>Removing coyote attractants>Keeping pets indoors>Strengthening properties against coyote intrusion>Enforcing laws prohibiting feeding of wildlife12 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Study of urban coyotes in LA County by CA State University Northridge and National Park Service (2020) found>60% to 75% of the urban coyote diet is garbage, ornamental fruits, and cats>Coyotes are taking advantage of unsecured food sources provided by humans>When coyotes view human activity as food source, habituation results•Frequent coyote visits to same location is a strong sign someone is feeding them13 Public Health DepartmentSummary of Related Research•Coyotes are naturally fearful of humans•Hazing, or fear conditioning, helps maintain that fear>Loud noises>Spraying water>Using bright lights>Throwing objects>Shouting•Pasadena Humane and CDFW offer coyote workshops to promote a culture of hazing14 Public Health DepartmentReported Coyote Concerns•Some community members have expressed growing concerns•Mildly habituated behavior>Entering enclosed yards>Injuring an unattended pet>Killing an unattended pet•Normal behavior>Sightings of active coyotes during the day>Stalking residents while walking their pets>Sitting or resting in front yards15 Public Health DepartmentReported Coyote Concerns•159 coyote concerns reported in 2022>12 of the 159 reports related to an injured or killed pet>Nearly 54% were for normal coyote behavior>26% for mildly habituated behavior>12% for aggressive habituated behavior>No calls for an attack on a human•51 reported concerns as of May 30, 2023 >22% less than the prior year for the same period>Two coyote attacks resulting in death of unattended pets16 Public Health DepartmentReported Coyote Concerns
170510152025
Jan 22 Feb 22 Mar 22 Apr 22 May 22 Jun 22 Jul 22 Aug 22 Sep 22 Oct 22 Nov 22 Dec 22 Jan 23 Feb 23 Mar 23 Apr 23 May 23GreenYellowOrange Reported Concerns by Threat Level (Jan 1, 2022 to May 30, 2023) Public Health DepartmentPublic Safety Committee Requests•Committee requested staff:>Review of the City of Torrance lethal control program>Seek more information on the SGVCOG Coyote Management Task Force; and>Provide recommendations for addressing the community concerns reported at the April 19, 2023, Public Safety Committee meeting18 Public Health DepartmentTorrance Lethal Control Program•City of Torrance>Population of 147,000>Geographic area of roughly 21 square miles>Proximity to natural resources and open space•Torrance is the only city in LA County to use lethal control to reduce coyote population•Like Pasadena, several other cities consider lethal control only when:>Unprovoked, confirmed attack on a human>Showing aggressive behavior toward humans19 Public Health Department
20 Torrance Lethal Control ProgramDate ActionJun 2016 Adoption of Coyote Management Plan (CMP)Sept 2019 Amended CMP to establish five-month trapping seasonOct 2019 – Mar 2020 Five-month trapping season completedOct 2020 – Mar 2021 Five-month trapping season completedNov 2021 Amended CMP to start year-round weekday trappingSep 2022 Added weekends in year-round trapping programPeriod Coyotes TrappedCoyote SightingsDog Attack Cat Attack Dog FatalityCat Fatality CostOct 2019 –Mar 202014 276 Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported$74,000Oct 2020 –Mar 202115 315 Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported$74,000Oct 2021 –Sep 202231 Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported$55,200Oct 2022 –May 202318 217* 5 4 0 23 $52,800*Data is for approximately 8 months but does not include the period of the year when coyote activity is heightened Public Health DepartmentCoyote Management Task Force
21 •SGVCOG developed the San Gabriel Valley Regional Coyote Management Framework>Collaboration with the CDFW, County of Los Angeles, and the University of California>Goal is to discourage coyote habituation through public education, behavior modification, and robust reporting and response system•Framework emphasizes coexistence, changing human behavior, and a culture of hazing Public Health DepartmentCoyote Management Task Force•Non-selective coyote removal programs are ineffective for reducing coyote population or preventing conflicts in the long run•Serves as the foundation for approaches to coyote response for•UWMP aligns with SGVCOG Framework22AlhambraIrwindaleArcadiaRosemeadGlendoraSan Marino Public Health DepartmentCoyote Management Task Force
23 •Neighborhood Coyote Program>Similar services provided by Pasadena Humane and City of PasadenaReporting toolsCommunity workshops and trainingsPet safety planning>Additional servicesEducational access lineReferrals to resourcesCrisis intervention>Does not conduct field visits or offer trapping services Public Health DepartmentFive Recommendations1.Increase public outreach services2.Improve local coyote activity reporting systems3.Convene a panel of coyote experts to improve understanding of effective approaches4.Hire a consultant to conduct a field study where community concerns are heightened5.Support residents to strengthen protections against coyote intrusion24 Public Health Department1. Increase Public Outreach Services•Build on or expand current services offered by Pasadena Humane and Citizen Service Center>Targeted public outreach and educationCulture of HazingRemoval of coyote attractantsCompliance with laws prohibiting wildlife feeding>Campaign to encourage public to report sightings•Dedicated resources focused on coyotes25 Public Health Department2. Improve Local Reporting System•Streamline and consolidate reporting into one point of contact•Quality local data is needed>Seek system improvements to map concerns using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)>Use data to identify neighborhood hotspots, launch targeted community outreach, and other hyperlocal interventions26 Public Health Department3. Convene a Panel of Coyote Experts•Surge in local research on urban coyotes>Focused on studying coyote behavior and methods for addressing human-coyote conflicts•Hosting a panel for the public may help improve understanding of coyote populations and reducing conflicts>Understand latest research>Identify approaches for educating the public>Address problematic coyote behavior>Learn about best practices in data collection and analysis27 Public Health Department4. Hire Consultant to Conduct Field Study•For one or more areas of the city where concerns are heightened, hire a consultant to conduct a field study>Assess neighborhood coyote population>Directly observe coyotes to understand behavior>Identify neighborhood food sources and other attractants•Recently, consultants prepared comprehensive coyote reports for Culver City and Manhattan Beach28 Public Health Department5. Support Protections Against Intrusion•There are several effective methods for strengthening properties against coyote intrusion such as coyote rollers, taller fencing, and lighting•Potential options for exploration>Incentives or financial assistance to property owners>Offer technical assistance to comply with the zoning code in historic districts>Review the zoning code to assess conflicts between coyote deterrents and zoning restrictions29 Public Health DepartmentOptions for ConsiderationOption 1: Direct staff to take steps to amend the UWMP to begin a seasonal trapping program, possibly October to MarchOption 2: Direct staff to take steps to amend the UWMP to begin an annual trapping programOption 3: Direct staff to implement one or more of the five staff recommendations listed in response to the Public Safety Committee30 Public Health DepartmentOptions for ConsiderationOption 4: Direct staff to take no action at this time.Option 5: Direct staff to pursue an alternative option not presented in this report.31 Public Health DepartmentRecommendationsIt is recommended that the City Council:1.Find the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3). The Common Sense Exemption states that CEQA only applies to projects that may have an effect on the environment; and2.Provide direction on whether to initiate one of the identified options or an alternative option not presented in this agenda report.32