SUBJECT:  Letter from law firm, Michel & Associates to Mayor of Long Beach, Robert Garcia.

CLIENT:  Long Beach residents.

TOPIC:  Insufficient city plan to control coyote population and prevent attacks on pets and children.

October 1, 2015

Mayor Robert Garcia

333 West Ocean Blvd., 14th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

Email: mayor@longbeach.gov

Via Hand-Delivery and E-Mail

Re:      Local Coyote Problems & Department of Fish & Wildlife Involvement

Honorable Mayor Garcia:

The City of Long Beach is experiencing a problem common to many other locales in California and across the country, aggressive urban coyotes. More and more of these municipalities are coming to the grim realization that these nuisance coyotes pose a significant threat to the safety of their residents. A recent coyote attack in the City of Irvine on a three-year-old girl who was accompanied by adults at the time shows just how serious, even deadly, this threat is. This young child was not the first victim of nuisance urban coyotes. And unfortunately, she won’t be the last, unless something is done by local officials.

Our office has been retained by a consortium of Long Beach residents who are seeking real solutions to the coyote problem.  While it is commendable that the Long Beach City Council is actively engaging on this serious public safety issue, it is also troubling that the Council seems to be accepting propaganda from radical “animal rights” groups as being legitimate solutions grounded in science or supported by legitimate experts in the field. In truth, many of the claims made by these groups are neither. For example, the groups can’t pinpoint any science supporting so-called “hazing” as a viable approach to managing nuisance coyotes. The real experts on coyote behavior have concluded, in peer reviewed scientific papers, that “hazing” does not work. And of course, this ignores the reality that hazing is quite likely illegal in the first place.

You should know that the same groups misleading you about the validity of using hazing are also currently lobbying the California Fish and Game Commission (“FGC”) to place protections on coyotes that would dramatically increase coyote populations and limit the city’s ability to manage nuisance coyotes. The truth is that these groups seek to protect coyotes at all costs. They do not care if their policies exacerbate local nuisance coyote problems.

We urge the Council to tell the FGC in no uncertain terms that it should reject any further protection of coyotes that would increase coyote populations, and should instead compel the Department of Fish and Wildlife to fulfill its duty to your constituents to “alleviate economic losses or public health or safety problems caused by wildlife.”[1] Not only is it the prudent thing to do to avoid legal liability for your city, it is the right thing to do. Demand that the FGC protect your residents before more pets or children are harmed—or killed!

The True Agenda of Radical Animal Rights Special Interest Groups

Radical animal rights groups have been representing themselves as “conservationists” or “ecologists” and claim to be the authority on appropriate coyote management measures. They are not. The goal of these groups is not to create a public policy that reasonably balances the needs of mankind, civilization and wildlife—with public safety being a paramount concern. These groups are solely interested in advancing their “animal-rights” agenda—no matter what the societal cost. The CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), Wayne Pacelle, has publicly stated: “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”[2] And they are doing just that.

HSUS has recently proposed that coyotes should only be allowed to be taken if a near-impossible-to-get permit is issued first.[3] This would eliminate general coyote depredation efforts that have been part of an overall nuisance animal management process that has proven successful at keeping dangerous coyotes (and other dangerous predators) from disrupting farming and ranching, and has kept them out of suburban areas—until recently. This is part of a larger HSUS effort to replace the long-term success of the North American Game Management Model with an unbalanced and unproven approach that allows predators like wolves, black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions, coyotes and other predator species to overpopulate and expand their territories—right into our backyards.[4]

In a nut shell, radical “animal rights” groups like HSUS are advocating a special agenda in place of valid regulation and balanced wildlife management science. Local officials should carefully consider whether it is appropriate to take advice on coyote management policy from biased interest groups like HSUS (not to be confused with local humane societies[5]) or Project Coyote. HSUS’s various ethical scandals should be enough to disqualify the group from participating in developing public policy.[6] But, more importantly, HSUS’s and Project Coyote’s “predators first” approach is inconsistent with elected officials’ responsibility to their constituents. Those groups cover-up the realities of urban nuisance coyotes and the genuine threat they pose to pets and humans to protect them so that they proliferate and reduce game herds to make hunting unsustainable.[7]  That is their end game.

The Unnatural Urban Coyote

Some people say we should leave urban coyotes alone and learn to “co-exist” with them “because they were here first.” But that is not the case. Coyotes came from the Great Plains to the west coast following human settlers.[8] They traditionally remained in areas outside of human reach, or remained cautiously stealth to avoid human interaction. They are now coming more often to urban areas where they never previously existed because of humans, not despite them, and exhibit no fear of humans.[9]

Some people understandably resist supporting the trapping or culling of coyotes as a necessary wildlife management tool because they love nature. This heartfelt response is understandable, even commendable to a degree. All decent people want to respect and protect nature. But it is disingenuous to claim that urban coyotes are “natural” when they are anything but.  The reality is that there is very little that is “natural” about the urban nuisance coyote. In the rural environment, coyotes and other predators have a limited food source.  But in the overflow urban or suburban environment that coyotes inhabit as their numbers in the wild overflow, coyotes have an easy-to-obtain and reliable food source in the form of trash and domestic pets. So their populations increase and their territories expand. The urban coyote’s lifespan is artificially high compared to its rural counterpart, and the urban coyotes’ pups’ survival rate is five times higher than rural coyote pups.[10]

Nor is the nuisance coyote’s behavior in urban areas “natural.” “The coyote that saunters down a suburban residential street in broad daylight, ignoring the presence of humans, exhibits strikingly different behavior from a coyote that lives in the wild . . ..”[11] Public officials should be very concerned about this, because “habituated animals, those who have developed a psychological patience with our presence, are potentially much more dangerous than non-habituated, or ‘wild’ animals . . ..” Ibid. Specifically, there is no precedent for urban coyotes acting as aggressively as the ones currently roaming Long Beach and surrounding areas are acting. Do not believe this is “natural.”

 “Hazing” Coyotes Does Not Work, and May Be Illegal

HSUS and Project Coyote suggest “hazing” as the main method for dealing with suburban coyotes. Some cities have adopted this approach, after being misled to believe it is the prevailing conventional wisdom on how to deal with suburban nuisance coyotes. It is not. “Hazing” was invented by these Radical animal rights groups, and its use has no scientific basis nor support from wildlife experts. To the contrary, the foremost experts in the field of coyote behavior and management have dismissed hazing as an untenable solution for the sort of coyote problems plaguing urban areas throughout California and the country. “The main problem with most fear-provoking stimuli is that animals soon learn that they pose no real threat and then ignore them,” explains Claude Oleyar in his University of California Davis published paper (a copy of which is attached to this letter). Professor Rex Baker has also explained that: “Once coyotes have begun acting boldly or aggressively around humans, it is unlikely that any attempts at hazing can be applied with sufficient consistency or intensity to reverse the coyote habituation. In these circumstances, removal of the offending animals is probably the only effective strategy.”[12]

These expert researchers have unequivocally found in peer reviewed studies that coyote and certain other predator populations must be actively managed by humans to avoid predator species becoming brazen and threatening to humans. Professor Rex Baker, PhD., one of the foremost experts on coyotes, explained in his work “Management of Conflicts between Urban Coyotes and Humans in Southern California” (a copy of which is attached to this letter) that “[W]hen coyote attacks on pets have begun to occur in an area, it is imperative that the problem be corrected by use of trapping, so as to prevent escalating human-coyote problems, including attacks on people.” In sum, the experts do not promote hazing.

Moreover, some forms of “hazing” appear to be illegal. The law prohibits “harassing” wild animals. To “harass” means to perform an intentional act that disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, including, but not limited to, sheltering, breeding, and feeding.[13] With few and limited exceptions, harassment of wildlife is a criminal misdemeanor.[14] The popular methods of “hazing” proposed by animal rights interest groups, which include chasing and throwing things at coyotes when seen in an urban area, likely fit the definition of “harassing.”

In any event, under the Humane Society’s and Project Coyote’s recommended “hazing” policy, the urban coyote populations have still soared, while these coyotes have become more aggressive and more successful in places they were never seen previously. Hazing is simply impractical, unsafe, ineffective, and likely illegal. The Council should directly ask those who claim otherwise if they have credentials at least similar to those of Dr. Baker. If they do not, then they should not be relied on in formulating such important policy.

Trapping and Sterilizing or Relocating Coyotes is Particularly Problematic

Some have suggested that cities should trap and sterilize or relocate coyotes. But neither is an option. While it is legal to trap certain nongame mammals including coyotes using specified methods, the trapped mammals must be immediately euthanized or released. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 465.5(g)(1); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 679(f)(4). In other words, the law prohibits both sterilizing trapped coyotes and releasing them to new locations at or near the same location where it was trapped if it is not going to be euthanized.

Sterilization may also be illegal “harassment,” since its purpose is to disrupt an animal’s normal breeding patterns. Moreover, even if sterilizing was legal, it does not address the immediate problem, which is aggressive behavior. If not all coyotes are sterilized, some pups will still learn the bad behavior. And, even if all coyotes in an area were sterilized, it could take years to see results, if ever, since outside coyotes would likely just move in to fill the void.

This Council Needs to Take Action Locally and at the State Level

Coyotes do not recognize city borders. So ultimately local, or even regional, action alone cannot be the solution, even if it involves removal of coyotes. Without active management of predators like coyotes by the state Fish & Wildlife authorities, this rapidly over-populating and dangerous predator species will continue to overrun more and more neighborhoods and cause more and more harm.  The next three-year-old attacked by one may not be as lucky as the little girl in Irvine, as some have tragically not been.[15]

Sadly, the FGC has repeatedly rejected requests from individuals for assistance with managing the growing problem of aggressive urban coyotes and urban coyote attacks, stating that such is “beyond the authority” of the FGC.[16]  The FGC has not, however, specified any legal basis for its position and we cannot find any. Nor has the FGC offered any indication of who else has the authority to address this issue, or offered any suggestions for how local governments are to achieve, let alone fund, ameliorating this snowballing issue. Local effects are simply being brushed off. This of course does not necessarily absolve the City of legal liability for injury caused by coyotes since the City has notice of the danger they pose to the public.[17]  It should, however, serve as an additional incentive for the City to seek answers from the FGC.

We urge the Council to demand that the FGC explain their basis for claiming they have no authority on this issue, and—if they are going to leave it all up to local governments—to explain exactly what local governments have the authority to do about this serious local wildlife management problem. The FCG should also be asked to explain how local governments can obtain support and funding for combating this problem. At the same time, the Council should tell the FGC to reject the efforts of extremist “animal rights” groups to protect the coyote no matter what the cost to humans or other wildlife populations. Explain that your constituents demand a solution to your city’s coyote problem now, and that the Commission’s goal should be a reduction in negative human-coyote encounters, not more coyotes.

The FGC will be addressing predator management in upcoming meetings this year and next, and it seems that the urban coyote issue would be a key consideration underlying that discussion. So now is the time.  Learn more about when and where FCG meetings take place at http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2015/.

Conclusion

Nothing in this letter is meant to suggest that people and coyotes cannot coexist to some extent, nor that ethics must be abandoned in resolving the urban coyote problem. But, “coexist” does not mean tolerating coyotes eating pets and besieging peoples’ homes and streets so residents are afraid to take a walk in their own neighborhoods. Coyotes should be afraid of people, as they are in nature, not the other way around. Contrary to what the “animal rights” groups assert, and in line with what the experts in the field say, there are effective, humane methods for establishing a healthy balance between mankind and coyotes.

If the Council has any questions or concerns about the contents of this letter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Michel & Associates, P.C.

C.D. Michel

[1] Cal. Fish & G. Code § 1801(g); see also Fish & G. Code § 1802 [“The department has jurisdiction over the . . . management of . . . wildlife . . ..”]

[2] http://www.humanewatch.org/creeping-hsus-kudzu-in-california/

[3] https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Predator-Policy-HSUSProject-Coyote-Recommend-3.pdf

[4] What Is Rewilding?, The Rewilding Institute, http://rewilding.org/rewildit/what-is-rewilding/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2015).

[5] The Humane Society of the Unites States (HSUS) and local humane societies are distinguishable—and at times, antithetical. HSUS is a multi-million dollar national fund-raising company that operates no local animal shelters. Online activist watchdogs like www.activistfacts.com assert that very little HSUS funds are actually directed toward caring for animals, suggesting that HSUS exploits the sympathetic positions of animals for the sole purpose of economic gain to push its radical anti-hunting agenda. Local humane societies, on the other hand, are small, independent, non-profit entities that focus on rescuing and housing animals for the purpose of caring for the animals and finding them homes.

[6] See http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/annual_reports_financial_statements.html; http://www.humanewatch.org/unpacking-the-hsus-gravy-train-2013-edition; http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus-has-quietly-sent-26-million-to-the-caribbean; http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus-and-co-defendants-pay-15-75-million-in-racketeering-lawsuit; and http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2014/02/08109_StateAttorneyGeneral02182014_162046.php#.VElFWk10yJD.

[7] For more on this, visit www.HumaneWatch.org.

[8] Gese, E.M., Bekoff, M., Andelt,W., Carbyn, L. & Knowlton, F. 2008. Canis latrans. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2014.2 available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3745/0 (“Coyotes were believed to have been restricted to the south-west and plains regions of the U.S. and Canada, and northern and central Mexico, prior to European settlement . . . With land conversion and removal of wolves after 1900, coyotes expanded into all of the U.S. . . . (Moore and Parker 1992).”)

[9] http://goodnature.nathab.com/urban-animals-wildlife-is-adapting-to-city-life/ (According to Stan Gehrt, a professor at Ohio State University who has been studying urban coyotes in Chicago: “It’s believed that because food and water are more readily available in cities, the urban animals are faring better than their rural cousins.”)

[10] Gehrt, Stanley D.; Brown, Justin L.; and Anchor, Chris (2011) “Is the Urban Coyote a Misanthropic Synanthrope? The Case from Chicago,” Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/3 [quote or summary?]

[11] Schmidt, Robert H. and Timm, Robert M., “BAD DOGS: WHY DO COYOTES AND OTHER CANIDS BECOME UNRULY?” (2007). Wildlife Damage Management Conferences — Proceedings. Paper 71, Page 14. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/71

[12] Baker, Rex O., “A REVIEW OF SUCCESSFUL URBAN COYOTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IMPLEMENTED TO PREVENT OR REDUCE ATTACKS ON HUMANS AND PETS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA” (2007). Wildlife Damage Management Conferences — Proceedings. Paper 58. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/58

[13] Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 251.1.

[14] Cal. Fish & Game Code § 12000.

[15] See, e.g., Kelly Keen Coyote Attack, Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press, http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/kelly_keen_coyote_attack (last visited July 24, 2015); Coyote Bites, Drags 2-Year-Old Girl at Orange County Cemetery, NBCLA.com, http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Coyote-Bites-Drags-Toddler-at-OC-Cemetery-216600781.html (last visited July 24, 2015); 3-Year-Old Girl Bitten By Coyote in Irvine, ABC7 Eyewitness News, Los Angeles, http://abc7.com/pets/3-year-old-girl-bitten-by-coyote-in-irvine/737235/ (last visited July 24, 2015).

[16] Decision List for Non-Regulatory Requests Received Through October 8.2014, California Fish and Game Commission, November 10, 2014, http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2014/dec/Exhibits/33B_1_DecisionListNon-RegulatoryAction11102014.pdf (last visited July 24, 2015).

[17] See Gov. Code, §§ 835-835.4 [providing municipal liability for certain dangerous conditions] and Arroyo v. State of California (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 755 [wild animals can constitute such a dangerous condition].)