From: Alfred Visco
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2026 10:48 AM
To: Karina Banales <[email protected]>; Bea Dieringer <[email protected]>; Jeff Pieper <[email protected]>; Leah Mirsch <[email protected]>; Patrick Wilson <[email protected]>; Jim Black <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Coyotes
Which neighboring agencies?
From: Karina Banales
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2026 10:18 AM
To: Alfred Visco ; Bea Dieringer ; Jeff Pieper ; Leah Mirsch ; Patrick Wilson ; Jim Black Subject: Re: Coyotes
Good morning Mr. Visco,
My apologies for not responding sooner.
The City has been working closely with our three neighboring agencies and with Supervisor Hahn’s office to address the coyote activity we have been experiencing. Staff has been developing a draft Coyote Management Plan that aligns with the approaches being considered by the surrounding cities to ensure consistency across the Peninsula.
At this time, all four Peninsula cities are evaluating alternative options, as the private trapper previously used by the agencies is no longer in business. We are coordinating regionally to identify safe, effective, and legally compliant solutions, as this issue needs to be considered holistically rather than by any single agency.
City staff will also be bringing an item before the City Council to provide a status update and discuss next steps on this issue.
We appreciate your patience and understanding as we continue this work. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karina
Karina Bañales
City Manager
This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message.
WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
From: Alfred Visco
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 9:53 PM
To: Bea Dieringer <[email protected]>; Jeff Pieper <[email protected]>; Leah Mirsch <[email protected]>; Patrick Wilson <[email protected]>; Jim Black <[email protected]> Cc: Karina Banales <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Coyotes
Following up on below.
Recommendation: Adopt an integrated urban coyote management program that includes long-term, intensive population reduction (culling) as a primary management tool, supported by nonlethal measures, public education, and public health surveillance, to reduce human-coyote conflicts, protect public safety, and address community well-being.
Approve funding and authorization for the Integrated Urban Coyote Management Program and direct staff to implement immediately with annual review.
Background: Urban coyote populations have expanded in density and behavioral boldness, resulting in: Increasing pet maulings and killings Heightened risk to children, seniors, and vulnerable residents Chronic fear, stress, and loss of outdoor use by residents. Increased exposure risk to zoonotic diseases, including Echinococcus multilocularis.
Previous reliance on coexistence-only or reactive management has not achieved sustained reductions in conflict in urban settings.
Scientific Basis Peer-reviewed research demonstrates that: High density urban coyote populations persist through high reproductive output and immigration. Non-lethal measures alone do not reliably reduce human–coyote spatial overlap once habituation occurs. Sustained, coordinated, long-term population reduction is required to meaningfully lower density and conflict rates. Short-term or sporadic removals fail due to rapid population rebound.
Policy Rationale This policy is justified on the basis of: 1. Public Safety: Preventing escalation toward human injury. 2.
Mental Well-Being: Reducing fear, trauma, and chronic vigilance experienced by residents. 3. Public Health: Lowering environmental pathogen load and disease exposure risk.
Effectiveness: Evidence shows population suppression reduces conflict probability.
Governance Duty: Municipal obligation to manage wildlife impacts, not merely observe them Traditional cost-benefit analysis is insufficient because it excludes non-market harms such as psychological trauma, loss of quality of life, and community trust erosion.
Program Components: Long-term, intensive, professionally conducted culling across the urban management zone Annual population monitoring and adaptive targets Targeted removal of aggressive individuals Public education and attractant reduction Disease surveillance in coordination with public health agencies Transparent public reporting and oversight.
Executive Summary: This policy establishes a lawful, science-based, and proportionate response to persistent urban coyote conflict through long-term intensive population management, integrated with non-lethal measures and public health oversight. Extensive research demonstrates that in urban environments, coyotes rapidly habituate to humans, maintain high reproductive success, and generate repeated conflict when population pressure is not reduced. Nonlethal methods alone have repeatedly failed to produce durable reductions in human–coyote interactions once this threshold is crossed. The policy recognizes public safety and mental well-being as legitimate governmental interests, including: The trauma and grief caused by violent pet loss. Chronic fear restricting residents’ use of yards, parks, and sidewalks. Heightened vigilance around children, seniors, and pets. Psychological stress consistent with living under ongoing threat. Additionally, urban coyotes are known carriers of zoonotic pathogens, including Echinococcus multilocularis, presenting a documented public health concern amplified by high population density.
The program does not seek eradication. It seeks density reduction to levels compatible with safe urban living, using humane, regulated methods and continuous monitoring. This policy is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests Supported by peer-reviewed science Proportionate and adaptive. Consistent with wildlife management best
practices Accordingly, the program meets legal standards for reasonableness, necessity, and public purpose.
Side-by-Side Rebuttal to Common Anti-Culling Arguments:
Argument: “Culling doesn’t work — coyotes just rebound.” Response: Short-term or sporadic culling does not work.
Sustained, long-term, intensive removal does. Population models show rebound occurs only when removal pressure drops below population growth rates. This policy explicitly avoids episodic control.
Argument: “Non-lethal coexistence is sufficient.” Response: Non-lethal tools are most effective before habituation occurs. In urban systems with established bold behavior, studies show non-lethal measures alone do not reduce encounters. This policy integrates non-lethal tools as support, not substitutes.
Argument: “This is cruel and unnecessary.” Response: The policy mandates professional, humane, regulated methods. Allowing preventable pet maulings, disease exposure, and chronic human distress is neither humane nor responsible governance.
Argument: “Humans moved into coyote habitat.” Response: Regardless of origin, municipalities have a duty to manage current risk. Governance is not about historical blame but present safety and quality of life.
Argument: “There’s no proof coyotes are dangerous to people.” Response: Public safety policy is preventative, not reactive. Pet attacks, habituation, disease transmission, and bold behavior are recognized precursors to human injury.
Argument: “Education and Hazing is enough.” Response: Education can somewhat reduce fear but does not reduce population pressure. Hazing fails when animals are numerous, habituated, and food-conditioned — exactly the conditions present in urban areas.
Argument: “This is just fear-based policymaking.” Response: Fear, trauma, and behavioral restriction are documented harms with real health and social consequences. Addressing them is evidence-based, not emotional.
Alfred Visco
From: Alfred Visco
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 5:58 PM
To: Bea Dieringer ; Jeff Pieper ; Leah Mirsch ; Pat Wilson ; Jim Black MD Cc: Karina Banales
Subject: Re: Coyotes
Hmm for some reason the ling at item 4 does not work. Here is is again. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.70339 Alfred Visco
From: Alfred Visco
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 5:53 PM
To: Bea Dieringer ; Jeff Pieper ; Leah Mirsch ; Pat Wilson ; Jim Black MD Cc: Karina Banales
Subject: Coyotes
Hope all is well. I know this is probably surprising that the first communication I am having with the City after a long hiatus is concerning the Coyote issue but I have been monitoring and engaging on Next Door concerning this issue for approx 4 months. I have also been doing research regarding same so I thought I would supply my thoughts, etc.
1. My first thought is to stop relying on LA County to do anything to help us manage this issue. The City should adopt a formal Coyote management plan and hire private firms to implement same.
2. Although we do not need more justification for controlling the Coyote population one issue that is rarely discussed is the fact that Coyotes carry several diseases. A quick goggle search will confirm the numerous diseases that they carry. One that is starting to gain serious concern and study is set forth in attached links:
https://kawarthanow.com/2024/11/26/parasitic-tapeworm-spread-by-coyotes-and-foxes-found-in-peterborough-dogfor-the-first-time/ and https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4273702/ and https://www.dvm360.com/view/trackingthe-spread-of-a-deadly-parasite-in-north-america
3. Here is a link to the most recent paper concerning lethal removal and non-lethal hazing of problem coyotes. It also discusses other issues such as culling to reduce coyote population. The so called rebound effect. Also non-lethal hazing to try to condition the non-problem coyote. They also have recommendations.Well worth reading. https://www.academia.edu/52769345/Evaluating_Lethal_and_Non_Lethal_Management_Options_for_Urban_Coyotes? email_work_card=view-paper.
4. Addressing those that are repeating the talking point that culling is not effective in reducing the coyote population. I spent an excruciating amount of time reviewing the latest scientific paper on this issue. Here is the link:
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.70339
I am not going to question their model and/or the data they used to reach their results. I will let the real scientist address those issues. What I am going to address is some of the interpretations that are showing up on the internet which in essence state this study confirms the believe that culling does not work.
The simplest way to do so is to quote the study: “While our study suggests that sustained, high intensity coyote removal can potentially lower coyote densities, the costs associated with this effort are impractical for most land managers at the scale of individual properties and even less practical on a large scale (e.g., statewide). For our own study area (~1% of South Carolina), we estimate yearly coyote removals would cost US$30,000 to $50,000 based on current rates in the local area. Given these costs, most managers of southeastern game species likely cannot rely on coyote removal as a long term solution to declining game populations. Instead, managers may adjust harvest regulations to explicitly account for the continued presence of coyotes on the landscape (Chitwood et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2014), either by lowering harvest limits or improving habitat quality to promote robust game species populations.”
What jumps out is not that culling is ineffective but it is too expensive if the agencies are trying to reduce the coyote population to protect game species. I would strongly suggest that whether or not to spend money on long term culling should not be based on some cost benefit analysis when it comes to public health and safety i.e. protecting our residences property such as their domestic animals and their own physical well being.
Boy can not wait for the comments on how heartless I am, that coyote have the right to live and we should learn to coexist with them and so on and so forth. Nothing I am espousing is meant to suggest that people and coyotes cannot coexist to some extent. But "coexist" does not mean tolerating coyotes attacking and eating pets, attacking people especially children and fragile seniors, roaming around our homes, yards and streets so our friends and neighbors are afraid to be in their own yards with or without their pets and walk,with or without their pets, in their own neighborhoods.
Another unsurprising fact discussed in said study was that if one stopped the high intensity coyote removal the coyote population rebounded. Wow what a stunning surprise. For those that take everything literally that Wow part of the foregoing is sarcasm.
5. Also I am not suggesting a culling of the coyote to reduce them so low that they reach the level of concerned ecological status. I believe that a combination of strict enforcement of the law against feeding wildlife (all wildlife - see the ND chain where some opossum lovers stated that they were feeding same) with real substantial penalties, removing the problem coyote, using non-lethal hazing on the non-problem coyote and reducing the general coyote population will bring the problem to a manageable level. The devil of course is in the detail i.e. what is the definition of a problem coyote, how are they going to be identified and how are they going to be eliminated; how and who is going to perform the non-lethal hazing; and what level should the general coyote population be reduced to i.e.; 75 %, 50%, or ?? and how should it be done. Under current law the only way a coyote can be removed is to kill it. Although outside the City’s control an interesting question is should the law be changed so that they can be trapped, sterilized, collared and released in another area that has a geofence so they will not try to return? Also another point is that no one has actually done a survey of the actual coyote population in the area to my knowledge. Therefore we do not know what is the real coyote density. I recognize and have recognized that what is being done now can either overestimate or underestimate the coyote population but unfortunately that is the only data we have.
Hope this helps.
Alfred Visco
Item: 14.B.
Meeting Date: 2/9/2026
To: City Council
From: Christian Horvath, Assistant to the City Manager / City Clerk Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Receive and file a verbal update on the Tennis Court ADA project Background:
None.
Discussion:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
Receive and file.
Attachments:
None
Item: 15.A.
Meeting Date: 2/9/2026
To: City Council
From: Nicolas Papajohn, City Attorney
Thru: Karina Bañales, City Manager
Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) the City finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the city in the litigation. (1 case) Name of case: Connie Andersen, et al. V. California Water Company, et al. (Seaview case) Case No.: 24STCV20953
Background:
None.
Discussion:
None.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
None.
Attachments:
None