Landscape, Nature And Travel Photography

• Tweet
• Share

• Tweet
• Share

On July 17th I wrote “Two Coyotes Killed In Golden Gate Park, San Francisco – Why Care?” and since that time I’ve been working hard to connect with someone at the California State Department of Fish and Game to discuss the policies that shape these types of wildlife management decisions. Well after nearly two months I was finally able to talk with someone about the matter after persisting through a marathon of phone tag. I ended up talking with Department of Fish and Game’s Sr. Biologist Eric Larson. Before getting into the details of my discussion with Mr. Larson I want to thank him for his time and professionalism. He was persistent in returning my calls and ultimately discussing this matter with me. With a little luck I’m hoping that I’ll not only get a chance to talk more with Mr. Larson, but perhaps we’ll be able to cross paths in the near future.

As most know who have read and tracked events with the killing of the coyotes in Golden Gate Park the outcome was far from ideal. The killings caught many people by surprise, including myself, namely because of the speed in which things progressed from perceived problem to eradication. Why was there such a quick decision to kill these coyotes?

The following chain of events occurred:
1. The City of San Francisco called the Department of Fish & Game out of concern that there was a health and safety issue.
2. A California Department of Fish and Game staff member was put in place to evaluate and monitor the coyotes.
3. Very quickly the coyotes were deemed to be aggressive without provocation and exhibited behavior counter to norm of being fearful of humans.
4. This evaluation was communicated back to the Department of Fish and Game.
5. Based on the coyotes behavior being incompatible for an urban environment the decision was made to remove the animals.
6. The coyotes were then shot and removed from the park
7. A necroscopy was performed on the coyotes to see if more could be learned to explain their behavior.

Why were the coyotes killed versus moved?
The explanation given was that coyotes are pack animals and would be ganged up on by existing packs or wouldn’t survive for environmental issues. After the fact there had been discussion that a rescue/refuge in Texas was available to take the coyotes, but there was timing issue and ultimately there would have been a cost issue as well.

What policies surround decisions to track and eradicate/kill wildlife deemed a nuisance or threat?
1. State “Depredation Permits” can be given out if property (including livestock) is damaged and animals can then be eradicate/killed.
Note: I tried to find specific information about this on the California State Department of Fish and Game web site, but had no luck.
2. Decisions to issue depredation permits are often made on a case-by-case basis regarding wildlife in urban areas. Three status levels exist in managing wildlife (paraphrased from the discussion):

Green – A wild animal has been seen.
Yellow – Some level of risk is seen and the situation is monitored
Red – Potential or existing conflict between human and animal.

3. Location is not as much of an issue as public safety when factoring in when to issue depredation permits.

With ample food supply, expanding human development into coyote habitat and growing wildlife populations it’s a given that coyotes will be back and this situation will have to be dealt with again. What can be done to address this situation differently next time? How can Department of Fish and Game’s policies be changed to make an impact?
Several points were made in relation to these questions …
1. Golden Gate Park was not built to accommodate this type of wildlife and coyotes were not known to be native to the area before the park was established.
2. Population management is actively conducted for some species by birth control, hunting and in the case of growing Coyote populations a natural regulation is expected to occur via starvation as food sources become more scarce.
3. More public education via the “Keep Me Wild” program to minimize feeding of wildlife in urban areas.
4. Recent policy changes have been made in how wildlife is managed including the outlaw of hunting certain species of wildlife and the prohibition of killing wild horses for meat.
5. For changes to be made in how wildlife is managed, such as in the Golden Gate Park coyote incident, state level policies would need to change.

Other points of interest from Mr. Larson in our discussion:
- A growing California population and shrinking wildlife habitat these types of situations will repeat through out the state.
- Some species are adapting well to our environment and others are not.
- Wildlife should come first.
- We as a species are not adapting.

My 2 Cents:
I’m still left concerned that coyotes will make it back into Golden Gate Park and/or another coyote in another part of the city will face a similar fate before any meaningful changes are made to Department of Fish and Game policy. I was comforted to know that public education was seen as a step in the solution, but I was alarmed that I had never heard of the “Keep Me Wild” program. Having lived in Los Angeles where coyotes were a common problem, I’m alarmed that more awareness isn’t embedded in San Francisco’s open space and recreational areas. I think in this regard it’s a shared responsibility of city and state agencies. Clearly this isn’t the state’s top priority and I would imagine the “Keep Me Wild” program is operating on very little funding. If changes are to be made it’s going to come down to lobbying for change by voters to state representatives. If this is something you’d like to see addressed then be sure to write your California state Assembly Member and/or Senator to share your concerns on this matter.

Mr. Larson once again thank you for taking the time to talk and helping me learn more about the California Department of Fish & Game’s perspective on the matter.

Technorati Tags: California Department of Fish & Game, coyote, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, wildlife, Keep Me Wild,