Talk:Coyote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dogs (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject South Dakota (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.


Contents

Wording issue[edit]

"As of most recent researches," doesn't make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.228.164 (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is unsourced, thus removed. Materialscientist (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Could you put in the evilutionary chain please and a time line with a geo-pattern?

Speed[edit]

"During pursuit, a coyote may reach speeds up to 43 mph (69 km/h)" This is the same speed given for greyhound dogs -- highly unlikely. Greyhounds are measured very accurately at the track. Unfortunately I can't find an authoritative source for an accurate measurement of coyote speed--maybe someone else can. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/young_naturalist/animals/animal_speeds/ lists a possible speed of 35 to 40 mph.Thoralor (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the only research measuring their speed I have been able to find so far: http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_nws/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1970-1978/1976%20vol%2050/50-3/v50%20p181%20Thompson.PDF It gives the top speed of one healthy animal as 32 kilometers per hour or 20 miles per hour, which is less than half the speed listed in the article here. It was a small study. Wolves are listed in the article here as running at 50 to 60 kilometers per hour, and they can catch coyotes. Maybe someone can locate a larger study of their speed or we'll just have to wait until a researcher accurately measures their speed.Thoralor (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Urban Coyotes in Vancouver[edit]

This is so common there's a bar by that name, there have been a few attacks on humans (infants mostly) and it's common knowledge not to leave cats or small dogs out at night due to the risk of consumption by a coyote. I've seen lots of coyotes in different parts of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.101.170 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact Vancouver has a lot of urban coyotes (as do many cities adjacent to the wild) necessitates an entire section dedicated to that fact. It's interesting, but would seem fairly out of place. Maybe a section dedicated to urban coyotes in general, with mention of Vancouver?

Thrillhouse85 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.29.41 (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Vancouver but Vancouver Island comes up again and again as I research animal attacks. They should rename it "Animal Attack Island". Never go there without some bearspray or something. Chrisrus (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary Culture[edit]

Found this little bit at the end:

""Coyote" is also a slang term for a person who smuggels illegal immigrants over the border from Mexico to the U.S.A. They are called this because of their reputation for being untrustworthy. There have been many recorded instances of "coyotes" abandoning illegal imagrants to die in the desert, or in Eighteen-wheeler truck cargo containers, as well as selling female illegal imamgrants into slavery."

It's rife with spelling mistakes, poorly written (IMO), and uncited. Remove? --Stephen (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do so... Dark hyena (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Article[edit]

I'm just leaving this comment to compliment the editors and contributors of this article! I came here looking for info on coyotes for a school assignment, and the information here is very concise and summarized (which I find to be the most useful type of information as opposed to messy, unorganized, random information scattered amongst web pages people probably won't find). Additionally, I love the photos in this article! I can't really think of anything that may be missing in this article... Good job, Wikipedians! --Matt0401 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - an excellent article. (I read it because my wife just heard a coyote howling - in Westchester, a little north of NYC.) PaulLev 06:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree. My only request is something more about the morphilogical adaptations. Superllama08

Howling Seasons[edit]

There definitely needs to be more info on the "howling seasons" -- right now it really contributes nothing to the article. TastemyHouse 04:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Weigh[edit]

how much does a coyote weigh?

Bizarre--the article lists the weight of the grey wolf as a point of comparison but never mentions the coyotes' weight. It's 20 - 50 pds, averaging thirty. I think I'll just add a section on anatomy as I just did the same for the red wolf Marskell 17:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Note format?[edit]

What reference format should I be using for this article? I went ahead and added a section and a reference list at the bottom with superscript notes...I didn't know if there was a protocol for this or not.

--IRelayer 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Interbreeding with gray wolves?[edit]

It says here that coyotes can breed with gray wolves and produce fertile offspring. Why then are they considered seprate species? I thought the term species referred to critters that couldn't produce fertile offspring--horses and jackasses can spawn mules, which are sterile, ergo the two are different species. This is apparently in contrast with the situation between coyotes and gray wolves. Seems to this layman that coyotes would constitute a "race" of wolves, not a separate species. Please ellucidate--thanks.

That's a simplistic definition of species. It's far more complicated then that. If two animal populations, such as Coyote and Grey Wolf, have significant morphological differences and do not regularly interbreed in the wild they will be considered separate species despite the fact that they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. One concept at work is that there is very little interchange of genetic information between those populations. It may be helpfull to review the Red Wolf page: "The upshot of the taxonomic debate is not simply a matter of accurate classification: although the actual patterns of evolution are complex and subtle, human classification schemes usually rely on relatively simple, hard-edged divisions, such as the concept of species, which is ill-adapted to describing the wolves of North America."
Also see the species article: "Without reproductive isolation, population differences cannot develop, and given reproductive isolation, gene flow between the populations cannot merge the differences. This is not to say that cross breeding does not take place at all, simply that it has become negligible. Generally, the hybrid individuals are less capable of successful breeding than pure-bred individuals of either species."Toiyabe 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I live in Prince Edward Island Canada, and supposedly we have the biggest coyotes in the world. They interbred with wolves (gray wolves i think) as they moved from the west to here, and not only are they larger but they also hunt in packs. I saw this on a documentary by David Susuki or on a special put on by National Geographic. 142.176.114.182 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
In the Oregon desert, coyotes hunt rabbits in packs at night. You can tell by the number of animals calling back and forth along the dry washes and gullies. And you know rabbits are the prey because after the noises of the skirmish you can hear them screaming. If you have never heard a rabbit scream you would not believe the sound.

Uniquerman (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read coywolves are descended from red wolves (US)/eastern wolves (Canada). Their DNA is ~10% domestic dog (sometimes), ~30-50% eastern/red wolf, ~30-50% coyote. There is no contribution whatsoever from grey wolf genes who split from the canid tree much earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.8.81.16 (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

While grey wolves and coyotes are different species, they are still capable of hybridizing with each other because the two are still very closely related. The two share a common ancestry being the Canis lepophagus but evolved a continent apart. The grey wolves evolved from a population of Canis lepophagus that migrated to Eurasia from North America while the coyotes evolved from the ones that stayed in North America during the times when the Berring bridge was still intact between Alaska and Eurasia. Having been separated from each other, the two species became more distinct from each other. During the times before the grey wolves returned, coyotes were quite successful as expanding their range all over the continent including a small Pre-Columbian era population that managed to migrate into the east and separated itself from the western populations. However, the grey wolves did migrate back to North America around the same time when humans made their way here and when the wolves began spreading there populations on the North American continent, they also had many encounters with the coyotes whom are basically their distinct cousins. Despite the fact that these two species do not normally interbreed, in areas where the grey wolves have diminished as a result of human impacts, such as in the eastern Canada to the Atlantic regions, the coyotes tend to occupy former grey wolf territories and the remnant grey wolves who have troubles finding a mate of their own species often begin to seek potential mates in the coyotes whom are still closely related to them. In this case, the Pre-Columbian coyote population in the east actually became extinct both as a result of hybridization with the grey wolves thus giving rise to the eastern wolf populations and also suffering from possible human impacts although the Coywolves from these interbreeding have in recent years backcrossed with the grey wolves in some areas and some have also backcrossed with the western coyotes which resulted with the rise of the Eastern coyotes. Though this crossing happens more between male wolves as the she-wolves are less likely to see potential mates in male coyotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.74.54 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well..[edit]

coyotes habitat goes as far as Costa Rica. that would include Central America as well as north america article is edited for update

Well ... Central America is in North America, so if it ranges In North America as far south as Costa Rica that's probly the best way to phrase it. WilyD 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While Mexico is in North America, the countries to the south are in Central America, NOT North America. Since when does Central = North?? --Paddling bear 14:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In geological terms, the entirety of Central America (except for about the southern half of Panama) is part of the continent of North America. "Central America" is just a conveneint term that refers to its political geography, not its geological geography.
It was about 70 million years ago when what's now Panama formed the connection between North and South America, separating the Pacific and Atlantic oceans from each other. Hence almost all of what is now called "Central America" is actually part of the North American continent.
Really? Well there are two terms in spanish that are "Centroamerica" and "America Central" the second is geographical while the first is political like you said, the thing is that I don´t know what are the mathcing terms in English.

75.70.123.215 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Central America is a region at the southernmost point of the continent of North America. Central America is not a continent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America) Lilkender (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

coyotes as pets?[edit]

I'd love to see info on the domestication of coyotes - even if it's to say it's impossible.

Also - should the movie "Coyote Ugly" be listed under the Fictional References?

youcantryreachingme 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme

I don't think I would list that movie under Fictional References because there isn't a coyote in the movie. And I'm sure coyotes can be kept as pets. Coyote / dog crossbreeds are very trainable as well. --Ignignot 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
A slight clarification - there has been no domestication of the coyote, except insofar as some domestic dogs have some coyote ancestry. It's plauasible that coyotes have been occasionally kept as pets, but that is something different. A pet coyote is a tame coyote not a domestic coyote. It seems likely that the coyote could be domesticated through generations of selective breeding, although it would probably be more difficult then domesticating wolves was because coyotes don't have as much of a hierarchical social structure. And it would be probably pointless to domesticate because there isn't a role for them to fill that domestic dogs don't already fill or couldn't be bred to fill more easily. Toiyabe 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone simply thinks they are cute critters and spends generations breeding them for that sole purpose.

It can be argued that the role that they can play, that domestic dogs cannot perform as well, is for drug/contraband sniffing. (Perhaps even land-mine, and cancer detection too.) Wild canids are generally accepted to have a superior sense of smell, and this matters in cold temperatures. In Russia, for example, there is a program to interbreed dogs with African jackals to improve detection abilities. Tsarevna 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's pet coyote: http://dailycoyote.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.15.16 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

why would you like a coyote as a pet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.231.176 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Life span?[edit]

The article says coyotes live an average of 6 years, but where is that information coming from? It seems a bit short to me, although I guess if you're including dead pups it would be low. I did a quick google search and other sites are saying 10-14 is a common life span, which makes for a pretty significant difference. Originalbigj 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Coyotes help humans?[edit]

In California coyotes regularly eat housepets and occasionally attack very young children (2-3 years old). Durova 07:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This happens in Colorado, too. But the point is that they provide a balance against vermin that would otherwise have to be poisoned or trapped and otherwise destroyed. http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/coyote_attacks.html says "Since 3 million children are bitten by dogs every year, your small child is millions of times more likely to get hurt by the family pet than by a coyote." It also says the last human to be killed by a coyote in California was in 1980. --Mdwyer 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
When you see stories about children being attacked by coyotes, wonder where their watchers were, and whether a car would have got them if the coyote hadn't. Tycon.jpgCoyoty 01:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The above really does not warrant a reasonable response since it not a reasonable statement.Bugguyak 20:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
In the time when Native Americans were the only humans, in many cases, the relationship between man and coyote/wolf was relatively calm. Some tribes adapted coyotes as domestic pets or partners out in hunts. The very history of canines developing affection with man started in the prehistoric times around the world, but coyotes and other wild canines are simply wild and unfamiliar with humans as much. Sadly, the overhunting and abusive removal of coyotes in the western US is a sorry recent development of this relationship. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Coyote in popular culture?[edit]

There is a section on popular culture both here and in Coyote (mythology), and both are attracting edits. Would it make sense to create a separate Coyote in popular culture article (like many of the other articles in Category:Animals in popular culture), and use {{main}} to link to it from both Coyote articles? — Catherine\talk 05:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources Needed:[edit]

  • Coyotes are often captured and raised when young and forced to guard farmers' livestock. In the 1800s, at least 29,485 coyotes were captured, and the governors later offered $591,596 to those who brought the farmers to court. Drakcap 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cite? I especially question "are often" and "forced to guard farmers' livestock." It looks like this must have a source because it is so specific but I can't find one. In any case, this happening in the Nineteenth Century might justify "were often," not "are often." I don't think it happens at all now and I question that it was ever common. I have trained dogs to guard livestock. I think that the process would be tougher with coyotes but "forced to guard farmers' livestock" is plain wierd. And why anyone would do this with dogs available, easier to train and often bigger and faster, I don't understand. Will in New Haven

Two references might have been mixed in the above item. The figure of captured coyote appears in "Travel Acadia National Park: guide and maps." But not in combination with them being raised as livestock guards. The concept isn't quite as unlikely as claimed above. Coyotes were kept as "semi-domesticated" companions by Native Americans. For large free-range livestock, like cattle or sheep, coyotes might have been better suited than dogs, since they were better able to provide their own dinner and weren't missed when they succumbed to a bigger predator or disease. One would need a pack of dogs, which then either would have a closer relationship with the farmer or would be in danger of turning feral. A pack of feral dogs can become a much more severe threat than coyote. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re[edit]

Ciao, esiste un areale di distribuzione del Coyote? Su commons non l'ho trovato...:)) 87.17.129.16 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

just a note to those who care - I've added some facts with appropriate references...I have ready access to lots of coyote research papers, since my master's thesis is based on coyote reproductive behavior. However, I don't know how to link the footnotes to the bottom of the page, and if anyone feels like helping out the site, it would be great if they could do that. Also let me know how, via this page, so I can be more efficient in the future. CeciliaHennessy 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)CeciliaHennessy

Sources Needed:[edit]

Re: The Chicago Quizno's incident, and of the wholly subjective assertion that Chicago-style pizza is an abomination.

Recent Sightings in Los Angeles[edit]

I removed this section from the article, but am saving it here. It's too specific for the scope of this article - would we create a headline level section for coyote sightings in every city in their range? No. Especially since coyotes are quite commonly seen by people in most places they live. I could easily add twenty such sightings just from my own experience. Unless the sightings illustrate something significant about the coyote, this risks becoming a redundant list of trivia without value to the typical average reader. And they're not sourced. --Justin 05:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As of December 2006,many people have reported seeing coyotes in various parks.An example is Pan Pacific.There have also been a few sightings in neighborhoods.
On April 17 a woman and her child had been driving by June Street near a bus stop when they had noticed a small dog walking across a lawn.Closer driving revealed it to be a small coyote.When they got out of the car,the coyote went in the opposite direction.They eventually lost the coyote when it crawled under somebody's gate.Another family had seen it also.
  • They're kinda dumb. I mean, I've visited LA pretty often over the last 40 years, and it's a 50-50 chance I'll see a coyote on a visit; big deal. Now, if one were to jump into a soda cooler on Rodeo Drive, it might be interesting... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Range Map[edit]

A Possible Mistake in Wording? Right in the openning paragraph you can read, "Coyotes are native to North America and are only found in North America south to Costa Rica." I don't understand. This tells me that coyotes are only found in Panama, which I know is wrong, but that's the only place/country in North America that is south of Costa Rica. — Dorvaq 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Native means that is where they came from. They are now found anywhere from North America to Costa Rica. ~~Tayler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.218.178 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
So I see it's been fixed, but, Toiyabe, by "Canada south" do you mean "south Canada" or "southern Canada", and if so I believe the reference is still wrong.
To clarify for later lines about range, "North America south to Costa Rica" means IN North America, south TO Costa Rica (inclusive); so it's not wrong. Likewise "Canada south" means IN canada, south {south to wherever].--Paddling bear (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Coyotes are found in northern Canada as well. In fact, according to the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology and DesertUSA, coyotes' geographic range spreads as far north as Alaska.
Also, according again to the aforementioned sources they are found as far south as Panama — not Costa Rica. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed it myself. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Coyote Range Map/ Coyotes in Newfoundland The Coyote range map is in DESPERATE need of updating. Coyotes are also now on the eastern Island of Newfoundland. The coyotes of Newfoundland are wolf-coyote hybrids and display different behaviour patterns then their mainland counter-parts. They hunt in packs, sometimes for sport, and also grow much larger then a mainland coyote. 142.162.137.147 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yah, the range map doesn't even show them on the Eastern coast of the United States and they are definitely here (frequent discussions about them in the suburban areas of Boston, for instance). Cchiappa 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a species doesn't have to interbreed to alter a behavior. While people often cite hybridization with grey wolves, the books I have suggest it was less often than people think. My mammalogy professor thought it uncommon as well. Coyotes could choose to pack up more when larger prey are abundant without 'inheriting' pack behavior from wolves. About maps, it might be hard to get an absolute accurate one, coyotes are in all 67 counties of FL now, but it was just recently noted as such, so no map will show it. Range is likely still expanding.--Paddling bear 14:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in New England, and see coyotes often, yet the range map does not include the New England States. Likewise with the piedmont (middle) region of North Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.158.241 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the University of Florida (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW127) and observations from reliable acquaintances here in northwest Florida, the coyote's range also extends deep into Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.179.8 (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, range map definitely needs to be edited. here's more references: this [link inactive], this [link borken] and also this (http://news.ufl.edu/2004/04/09/coyotes/). Michael1115 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just want to add my 2-cents to this. I live in GA and coyotes are common all over the state, and I've personally seen them many times. This article could use an actual range section. Ormico (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources webpage (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/coyote.html), coyotes have moved into Maryland's Eastern Shore and Delaware, moving from west to east across Maryland. Lilkender (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the range map As was stated by a previous user on this page, the coyote range extends well beyond the area marked in red on the map. I live in Massachusetts and coyotes are quite common, yet the whole of New England is not included in the range. I am sure most of the other areas along the eastern seaboard are in the same situation. Is there any way to remedy this or find a different map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.222.212 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The range map is unquestionably wrong. The info about the range is an outright falsehood. Coyotes have well documented populations in the northeast. The evidence from scholarly sources is unquestionable. They are found dead on the road. There are photographs. They are most definitely here with a sustainable population. How can you do an entry about an animal and put up totally inaccurate information about an animal's range? I apologize in advance but I don't normally use the discussion page, so I am sorry if I did not use the proper format. Source: National Geographic article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0806_020806_coyote.html 21 May 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.196.168 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talkcontribs)

Cleaning up of the range of the coyote. I think the description of the expansion of the coyote's range needs rewording. Saying sightings are now common in California, New England and eastern Canada is like saying sightings of mice are now common in those areas. Well, sort of. There have been "sightings" of coyotes all over the desert southwest, up and down the Sierras, Cascades, etc for as long as former Europeans have lived in these areas. I would like to see documentation of whether they coyote's range really has expanded and maybe a discussion of the urban expansion of the coyote's range as well. I live in Portland, Oregon and I have seen coyotes on suburban streets at night. I followed one in my car for several minutes - it seemed unconcerned by my "tailing". But for all I know, the coyotes have always been here in what I now call the city. Jawshoeaw 06:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)jawshoeaw

Coyotes in Oregon and California. Under the heading 'Adaptation to human environment', it is noted that coyotes are now commonly sighted in Oregon and California. This is absolutely correct, except for the word 'now'. Desert and intermontane plains in Oregon and California are part of the their historic range, except west of the Cascade divide and generally west of the Sierra Nevada's western foothills. Otherwise they have always been there, at times in great numbers. I don't know if they have adapted to forest environments there as they have in the East, where they are known to be resident in various Appalachian ranges, but they have certainly adapted to human habitation, particularly suburban developments.Uniquerman (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.164.150 (talk)

No mention of livestock predation and coyote persecution[edit]

Livestock predation and the history of trapping coyotes to protect livestock seems an obvious omission in this article, especially since it gives the article a substantial biased point of view. --Bugguyak 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The current revision seems to be a great start to addressing the above mentioned ommisions. Thank you anonymous editor. Bugguyak 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I find it odd that it wasn't added earlier. Good job with the picture by the way.87.102.17.53 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference between coyote and golden jackal?[edit]

Aside from size, what differentiates the coyote from Eurasia's golden jackal?83.187.226.129 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Location and taxonomy. I have worked with both and the behavior, diet, and even physical appearance are very similar. Bugguyak 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is quite difficult to differentiate the two, even when put together (with the obvious exception of size). But I wonder if there are subtler differences, like skull morphology, dental formula etc. 87.102.44.225 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The coyote dental formula is 3/3 1/1 4/4 2/2 (occasionally 3/3, 3/2, or 2/3 x 2) see: [1] while that of the golden jackal is 3/3 1/1 4/4 2/3 see: [2] -- Bugguyak 01:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

chupacabra[edit]

Reverted to remove very brief, poorly written reference to a creature hyped to be a chupacabra but proven to be a coyote by DNA analysis. While this may merit a mention in Chupacabra, it seems irrelevant to this article.--H-ko (Talk) 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias in 'Attacks on humans' section[edit]

In the past 6 months, this section has been altered to remove direct references to the Timm and Baker study, "Coyote Attacks: An Increasing Suburban Problem" (March 3, 2004). There is no longer a mention of that in the discussion, although the study itself is still listed below. Interestingly, the following completely inane, poorly written, and obviously biased lines were added and referenced to a co-existence advocacy group: "If followed by a coyote, making loud noises and making oneself look bigger is said to work. Throwing rocks should be a last resort measure."

With increased suburban daylight sightings and attacks all over the Eastern U.S. in 2007, including rampant pet attacks in suburbs in Ohio, and attacks on children and pets in New Jersey, this subject is at best controversial and yet the neutrality and credibility of this section seems to have been thoroughly compromised by omission, hearsay, and subjective ideological opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzeaux (talkcontribs) 09:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well dang, why don't you fix it? RedSpruce (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed the how-to scare off a coyote section, which I'm sure made other people laugh too. Throwing rocks a last resort? LOL Bugguyak (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a part on how to confront coyotes in an encounter would not be uncalled for, as long as it is well written. I mean, the grizzly and some shark articles already show such info.Dark hyena (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, WP has a rule against including "how-to" information; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Personally, I think that rigid adherence to this rule is silly and detrimental to WP, but there are other editors who are sticklers for the letter of the law. RedSpruce (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is definitely some bias in this section. I tried to edit the sentence about the coyote attacks in Westchester county, which states here that there was no evidence of rabies in the offending coyotes. To the contrary, at least one of the coyotes was confirmed to be rabid - I edited this and added new citations backing up my claim, only to find it removed the following day with the comment that my edit 'was not found to be useful'. Who is controlling this page and why are they leaving up erroneous information? Clearly it is not a true 'wiki' if edits like these are removed immediately after posting them.

Coyotes and Large Dogs[edit]

I found the claim that coyotes have an advantage over larger dogs to be pretty silly and to make little sense. The source used to support this is trying to sell a product to "keep coyotes away". I do not believe this to be a very reliable source because of that. Most large dogs will drive coyotes away, and a coyote is no match for most larger dogs, especially since herding breeds like collies and border collies are bred to protect stock from coyotes. Coyotes are very lightly built compaired to dogs of this size, and many larger dogs kill coyotes in confrontations. My collie and border collie have chased coyotes away, and the coyotes run for their lives. Most coyotes will not even fight a dog because of the risk of serious injury, which is a death sentence to a predator.

I do know however coyotes will target and occasionally kill smaller breed dogs though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.199.144 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rottweiller in the article that was supposedly "killed" by the coyote in fact died of a heart attack, not neccesarily from the coyote fight. I hunt coyotes, and they have much smaller canine teeth than larger dogs. This is a pretty ridiculous assertion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.158.236 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Large and medium-sized dogs lost to coyote attacks, or badly damaged by coyote attacks in the San Diego area in 2003 were usually asleep in the yard. During the coyote hysteria of that year, my niece's dog Sashi (who just died of liver cancer) easily killed a coyote, one of three that came in the yard. The others ran away. Sashi was a ninety-pound Malemute/Lab cross and very aggressive. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven

We're talking proportionately here. Here are a few scans from Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution. Wild canids have proportionately bigger heads and teeth than domestic dogs. http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/GGordo/dogs/PhysicalDifferences002.jpg http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/GGordo/dogs/PhysicalDifferences004.jpgDark hyena (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps proportionately they have larger canine teeth, but my 55 pound border collie has bigger canines than your average 25 - 30 pound coyote, and has driven off scores of the little devils. I do not think the source you used is a reliable one, as it is an advertisement for a "pet protection" system. Most coyotes are driven off by your average farm dog, and usually coyotes are killed or seriously injured in confrontations with sheep and other farm dogs. I am a very experienced rancher and the statement that a coyote has an advantage over a large dog in a confrontation is pure grade A bullflop. Coyotes are far smaller and have no where near the muscle or jaw strength. I have never heard of a single coyote seriously injuring a large dog. Every encounter I have ever heard ended poorly for the coyote. This section should be re - edited again. If that ad was true, coyotes would be attacking and eating people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.178.109 (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources I provided never claim that the coyotes killed the dogs, it only states that some coyotes have in fact attacked them, whether the dogs were larger or not.Dark hyena (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense. However to say large dogs that were bred for herding livestock, not to mention dogs like rotties, ridgebacks, pit bulls and others are at a disadvantage in a confrontation with a coyote defies common sense and what I have experienced. A coyote might have an advantage over a SIMILIAR sized dog since coyotes are wild animals. But I have heard of coyotes being killed even by border collies, with little injury to the dog. I also have contended that the source that says coyotes have an advantage over larger dogs is questionable because it is a sales pitch.

I agree, but in both provided cases, the large dogs were pampered family pets, not working specimens which have honed their abilities. The coyotes definately held a psychological advantage, as the poor dogs probably had no experience whatsoever in hostile encounters.129.12.200.49 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Most larger dogs were bred for protection. Coyotes don't have an advantage over something bred to protect humans or livestock. Your not going to see a 30 pound coyote beating a 120 pound rottweiler, or even a 60 pound collie, in a fight. It just doesn't happen. The source you used is plain and simply a sales pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.196.119 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think salespitch websites were valid sources here on wiki. This section seriously needs edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.146.180 (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the part about attacks on humans. It says due to the relatively small size of a coyote, serious injuries are uncommon. Domestic dogs often cause serious injuries and even death to humans when they attack. A coyote has no where near the strength or power as most larger domestic dogs. It's just common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.147.96 (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that the drivel about coyotes having an "advantage" over a large dog was removed. It was based on nonsense and a sales pitch. Good compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.150.43 (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that any nonsense about coyotes killing large dogs was removed. Dogs unused to the ferocious wild posture adopted by coyotes upon confrontation are taken aback, but it is usually the coyote that tucks his tail under and runs, unless the dog is considerably smaller. Coyotes are no match for any breed of Australian cow dog, which are about the same size. Reports of coyotes in the neighborhood of fifty pounds are hard to believe, and the citation of one weighing 74+ pounds was undoubtedly some kind of hybrid. I have seen hundreds of coyotes and never one remotely approaching the size of an Airedale or standard poodle.Uniquerman (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My dog weighs fifty pounds, so I think I am well-qualified to say that the coyotes I have seen are in fact about the same size. Unaware at that time of their presence in my area, I actually mistook the first one I saw (at relatively close range) for a German Shepherd. Apparently Eastern coyotes are bigger than their Western kin, so depending on your location, you may have only seen the smaller variant. Admittedly there's nothing else in this photo to give a sense of scale, but take a look at this beast: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkwebzone/3999659294/ BTW, this is not my photo, but it's where my coyote sightings have been (Mt. Auburn Cemetery, near Boston). 24.128.188.152 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only large dogs that I have heard of being seriously injured by coyotes were dogs that were attacked at once by multiple coyotes, at least a pack of 3. But coyotes usually don't attack in packs like wolves do, though it is certainly not unheard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.157.10 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

People need to stop editing and deleting the common sense truths that larger dogs are able to chase off coyotes and on occasion kill them. There are tons of different breeds that do this, from Austrailian Cattle Dogs all the way up to huge guardian breeds like the Anatolian Shepherd and various Mastiffs. Anybody who knows anything about coyotes or dogs knows this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.157.85 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Coyote hunting[edit]

Does anyone else here think it might be in order to have a section on coyote hunting? I dont live in America, but from all the pictures and articles I've seen, the hunting of coyotes seems to be a popular sport. Heck, an amazon search showed up to five books on how to hunt them. Dark hyena (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very popular sport in the western United States where I reside. I would support and contribute to this. Bugguyak (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve. Now... where do we start? I've never hunted anything before, so I'm hesitant to add what could be myth or falsehoodDark hyena (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't hunt them for sport either. While I have worked to control coyotes in wildlife management situations, sport hunting is a whole different breed. Bugguyak (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about hunting them either, but I know that you can also trap them. I think that it would be good to tell people about hunting/trapping them, as they can really be a problem, expecially with all these new hog confinements going up all over the place. Also, they were killing off my cats two or three every night. They got eight before I was able to figure out what was causing it. I now have to keep my cats inside every night. I would prefer to get rid of these coyotes instead, as it is time consuming and difficult to find all of my cats and get them into a safe area. (I live on a farm with many barn cats)Sorry I got off subject, but basically, I think it would be good to know how to get rid of them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.61.228 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No one hunts coyotes for sport. Unless they are being trapped for their fur, in most places they are considered vermin. Sometimes they are gunned down for the fun of it, the same way boys shoot groundhogs and gophers, and nobody seems to mind much, as long as they are shooting away from the cattle and the houses.Uniquerman (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between shooting them for 'sport' and 'for the fun of it'?--Paddling bear (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hunting coyotes (or anything else) for sport usually entails trying to kill a particularly large/attractive/etc. specimen. Coyote hunters will often employ calls/scents to lure in the coyote. Whereas may farmers and others simply shoot any coyotes they see, the objective being to either kill of the local population or at least kill the ones dumb enough to be seen near livestock/human habitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.95.91 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Which picture is better for the infobox?[edit]

Canis latrans.jpg
Coyote2008.jpg

Both are very good full body shots. However, I am undecided. On one hand, the rest of the article's pictures seem to be completely focused on dense-furred Northern coyotes, while the infobox picture is a one of a short furred Southern coyote, thus doing justice to the species regional diversity.

On the other hand, the other picture has much more contrast between animal and background, thus making it's physical conformation easier to make out.Dark hyena (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the background contrast is better in the new photo, but it appears out of focus when compared to the info box photo while the infobox is a better representational picture overall, has a little bit of interest (the animal is not just standing there), the lighting is better, and the feet are visible, whereas the feet are obscured by the grass in the other one. Bugguyak (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up External Links section[edit]

I have been cleaning up the external links section per WP:EL to remove links to web sites with commercial content that may be considered WP:SPAM or just to remove repetitive information. The link in question seems to be an interview with a ecologist about the eastern coyote where he also promotes his book. The eastern coyote is already represented by this dot.edu web site: http://www2.bc.edu/~wayjo/mainpage.html I also added a NoMoreLinks template to see if we can stop this silliness. Bugguyak (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "DOGS" :
    • {{cite book | author= Coppinger, Ray | url=http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Understanding-Canine-Behavior-Evolution/dp/0226115631/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204465887&sr=1-1 | title=Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution | year=2001 | pages= p352 | id=0684855305 }}
    • {{cite book | author= Coppinger, Ray | title=Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution | year=2001 | pages= p352 | id=0684855305 }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation[edit]

i've heard lots of people here in south texas call them coy-oat-es(plural) or just a coy-oat-e with the E like in the word 'bed' or 'end'. and i've noticed that here kai-oat-ee is used like 'doggy' or 'kitty' usually only when people talk to kids.J.J. (talk)

In south Texas the influence is probably Spanish. Everywhere else, excepting other places with a heavy Spanish influence, it is pronounced the other way.Uniquerman (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

calls[edit]

why is there nothing about there calls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.60.49 (talkcontribs)

See the communications section for their "calls".Bugguyak (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Length of coyote[edit]

Is the length given for head and body? I have to assume tail is not included? I think a little clarification here would be good. JBarta (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it now says "not counting the tail" and gives the average length of said tail. Bugguyak (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted link[edit]

Deleted this link as it now points to a 404 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.10.113 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this nicely varied (albeit all taken at Wind Cave National Park, SD) collection of coyote photos on the NPS site; if they are suitable to replace the deleted link, maybe someone would like to add them? http://www.nps.gov/archive/wica/Pictures/Coyote/index.htm 24.128.188.152 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Coyotes in cities[edit]

I'd like to install an external link to urbanwildness.com, a photo-essay & catalog of coyotes living in a large urban environment, central San Francisco. The site linked will be of interest and useful, I believe, to anyone who reads the article here and then wants to specialize, focussing on human/wild animal interactions & habitats & behaviors in modern urban conditions. 

The site offers many detailed photographs, and sound recordings, showing the varied moods and individual personalities of these intelligent and energetic animals. It is my wife's site and she is the photographer and recorder -- it is not a commercial site -- selections from these images have been shown in several public venues, including shows now on extended display at San Francisco's Randall Museum and Main Public Library.

Any thoughts? OK to add this?

Kessler (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL regarding external links. If the web site contains pertinent information that would contribute to the article, you can add an in-line link to the referenced material under one of the sub sections. Bugguyak (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, tks and will do. Kessler (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Okay that is all thanks and enjoy this page =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.124.84.195 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation Bias[edit]

Both "kahy-oht" and "kahy-oh-tee" are acceptable pronunciations of "coyote," as attested by several online dictionaries. (See this link from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coyote. The Oxford English Dictionary also supports both pronunciations; unfortunately, one needs a subscription to access the online version.) The Wikipedia article should state this fact. Currently, it states that only "kahy-oht" is the correct pronunciation. Never mind that social class, geographical origin, media exposure, and educational attainment influence one's pronunciation of the word "coyote" (among many other words); the fact remains that both pronunciations are accepted as correct in authoritative, mainstream dictionaries, and the Wikipedia article should adhere to this standard, as well. (Full disclosure: Hailing from the Western United States, I myself have always pronounced it as "kahy-oht," the pronunciation supported in the Wikipedia article, but I still acknowledge that it is important to list both pronunciations. I hold no grudge against people who pronounce it "kahy-oh-tee," and they deserve to be fully represented.) --Namenderkrieg (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I added the alternative pronunciation. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard the two-syllable pronunciation (in Massachusetts). Thanks for the note. Ucucha 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy[edit]

The section on taxonomy lists many subspecies and their range, but looking through the list for what subspecies would be in Florida, I don't see one that goes east of Arkansas or Ontario. Which subspecies expanded into New England, Florida, nad New Brunswick, etc.? Anybody have a reference, or if not can we make an educated guess from the subspecies closest to the areas? --Paddling bear (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies map?[edit]

I was looking for the subspecies that would be in Florida, but the closest description, Southeastern, sounds like it's only eastern or SE OK to Arkansas. I have a copy of Hall 1981 Mammals of the World for black bears that shows a map of subspecies, does anyone have access to a library or a copy that would show what subspecies is in Florida for sure? Surely there is some more recent work for these descriptions and the range map (see the long list of comments above on the map).--Paddling bear (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Most coyote subspecies maps show Florida as populated by C.l.thamnos, a.k.a. the "Northeastern Coyote". However, I suggest you google the jocular nickname "Canis soupus". The joke is, experts tell us that most eastern US "coyotes", while mostly latrans, but almost all of them have lupus, of which some is wolf (gray and red) and a little bit dog. So they are a "soup" or mish-mash of species and subspecies. Also, I'm not sure that coyotes ever lived in Florida until recently or whether they are another invasive species. Chrisrus (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A FL state report says that coyotes moved into Florida in the last several decades, but fossils were found so they were native, were extirpated during the ice age and moved back recently. They suggested it was 'naturalized'. Still, native or not, these coyotes came from somewhere, but I suppose even 100 years isn't long enough to become genetically modified by natural selection, so there wouldn't be a SE subspecies of coyote, unless someone just assigns them one.--Paddling bear (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That's very interesting. Thank you for this information. How can I see the report you mention? I'd like to see the study where they found coyote fossils in Florida. We might be able to use such citations to improve the article. Were they exterpated from Florida by humans or by wolves, and when? And with regard to what you said about 100 years, I wouldn't be so sure. You can have many gererations of Coyotes in that amount of time, and if they were under serious pressure to "sub-speciate", it might be enough time. Anyway, thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DesertKitfox.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that may be relevant to this article, File:DesertKitfox.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits removing pet attack content[edit]

The string of edits made by Epischedda recently has removed pretty much everything from the article dealing with attack on pets. The first few edits I understood, the language seemed a bit over the top, dramatic. The last few edits however went to far, and removed sourced statements. The edit summaries used in justification are also over the top, the statements about pets are definitely not "inflammatory" this is about an animal, it's not a BLP. The statements also were not unsubstantiated or unfounded. There are plenty of source to support attacks on cats and small dogs. I have no problem with the language being toned down but there is no reason to flat out remove this subject from the article. Beach drifter (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've undone your undoing of my corrections to the article. Saying "There are plenty of source [sic] ..." isn't the same thing as there truly being sources. If you have the sources, supply them herein. I suspect you can't because there aren't any legitimate ones (popular-press articles quoting vets whose income depends on assuaging the consciences of irresponsible pet owners - who let their pets run loose and which subsequently get run over by cars or god-knows-what-happens-to-them, and who then blame their loss on coyotes - don't qualify as legitimate sources). There's plenty of hysteria in suburbia about marauding coyotes; there's very little if any substantiation of such irrational fears - certainly none documenting that the behavior alleged to coyotes is routine or common.
I checked the references in the article before making my corrections and found the alleged sources to be nonexistent or irrelevant to the statements being referenced.--Epischedda (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits again. You cannot remove sourced content from wikipedia articles because you disagree with the sources. Popular press articles are used extensively on wikipedia as sources. The fact that you suspect the sources behind those articles (ie vets and animal control) as being liars is completely irrelevant. The point is you are weighing your personal beliefs and experiences against that of the media, in this case newspaper articles that clearly meet wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source. If you spend thirty seconds googling coyotes and pet attacks, you will find overwhelming evidence that cats and small dogs are attacked on what appears an almost daily basis. It seems you must take this personal for some reason. I think coyotes are awesome animals and am thrilled to have seen them even in the middle of a large city here in North Carolina. They are just doing what they are supposed to do. Beach drifter (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I have undone your edit reversion again, again on account of the original remarks being unsubstantiated. You should not abet the passing off of poorly-sourced commentary as legitimate knowledge of a topic by restoring such commentary after removal by an editor. You seem to be determined to allow such commentary to stand - why? You clearly have little understanding of the distinctions in the quality of source material.
Citing an article with a web reference that returns a "404 - Page Not Found", or another that contains no proof of what it claims to report (a one-sided claim about a (healthy?) dog allegedly dying of a "heart attack" after tussling with a coyote that therefore "killed" the dog), does not make for proper sourcing of remarks about coyotes routinely preying on pets, even if those articles appear in reputedly legitimate newspapers (much less when they appear in newspapers that do not necessarily constitute "reliable sources"). Such an article may partially document that a very few people believe an ostensibly healthy pet can suffer following an encounter with a coyote, even when their pets are leashed; that's a long way from documenting that coyotes generally prey on pets as the original remarks excised by me imply. Furthermore, given the noted lack of substantiation of the original author's remarks, using "Pet Predation" in the title of that section is misleading, alarmist and therefore improper given that no such predation has yet been documented by the article author.
Put simply: citing a newspaper article in which the word "coyote" appears does not necessarily source a remark in a section of a Wikipedia article claiming to document what is legitimately known about coyotes and their prey. Most importantly, a remark in the Wikipedia article about one of the two instances in the entire record of North American history of a human dying at the hands of a coyote belongs in no such section; such an article says nothing about coyotes' general "Diet and Hunting" i.e. their prey, leaving the attributed remarks being genuinely unsubstantiated/unsourced and their placement of questionable objectivity and motivation. Just because a Wikipedia author references a newspaper article does not mean their remark is objective and legitimately sourced/substantiated.
If there is, as you say, "overwhelming evidence" to be found via Googling "coyotes and pet attacks", then that just begs the question: why doesn't the article contain references to such evidence? Why cite articles that come up empty when searched for via Google, Bing etc., or that don't document what the Wikipedia and newspaper article's authors imply?
I have no dog in this fight; my concern is that the article at hand (and all others in Wikipedia for that matter) contain only remarks that are substantiated by references to authoritative and available sources quoting genuine knowledge and expert opinion (which you might understand if you had actually read the material at the "reliable sources" reference you rather disingenuously and grandiosely supplied in your preceding Discussion comment). Again: if an editor can supply legitimate authoritative references that substantiate even-handed language regarding any proclivity of coyotes to prey on pets, particularly properly supervised pets (the commonly-understood meaning of the word "pet"), I am in favor of such references being included in the article footnotes in relation to appropriate summarizing language in the body of the article. But that's not what we have with the article at hand prior to my edits, and until appropriate unbiased and properly sourced language is included in the article, undoing my edits constitutes an imposition of unsubstantiated bias into the article at hand. As it stands there appears to be little more than isolated anecodotal evidence of the excised material, and such evidence should not be used to prop up heavy-handed remarks that make more of such evidence than it is.
What it comes down to is this: is Wikipedia going to be a reliable repository of legitimate knowledge, or is it merely going to be some kind of vehicle for the quasi-educated and easily-impassioned-and-alarmed to pass off and receive as comprehensive understanding the lurid tales that are frequently printed to sell some newspapers, magazines and TV news shows (car wrecks and crime, anyone?)?
Lastly please do not reference my username in the title of the discussion of the article at hand - this discussion is about whether commentary in an article on coyotes is legitimate and has been substantiated; you seem to be trying to make it about me, as is further evidenced by your use of inflammatory or grandiose words and phrases like "suspect", "liars", "personal beliefs against ... articles that clearly meet [W]ikipedia guidelines as reliable sources", "overwhelming evidence that cats and pets are attacked on ... an almost daily basis". And please don't accuse me of "[taking] ... 'personal'" my attempts to improve the accuracy and substantiation of the article at hand; that's you merely taking a few lessons from Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Lee Atwater and their patron saint Josef Goebbels in challenging the motivation behind my work.
This is an incredibly long reply to a very simple subject. I only skimmed it. Did you look at the google search link I supplied? Can you in quick and simple language explain why you think coyotes do not attack pets? I can understand your argument about poor sources, it is a common problem everywhere on wikipedia. However when you systematically remove specific information from an article about one specific thing, well you can see the problem. I changed the talk heading to something more appropriate. Beach drifter (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Replying to the request for comments on WT:MAMMAL, first let me both editors have been continuing an edit war, and should have stopped reverting several reverts back; can you just let it stand, until the discussion is over? Looking at sourcing, I don't see any reason to doubt the newspaper articles; but anyhow, this piece, one of the Google results Beach drifter turned up, is by the major study on urban coyotes, which takes for granted that such attacks occur; this is from the Proceedings of the 21st International Vertebrate Pest Conference; and this in the current issue of Audubon mentions pet attacks, so hard to doubt that attacks on pets occur and sources to the effect cannot be found easily. —innotata 13:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for leaving my username out the Talk heading (though I can't help but notice that you just had to change it from what I had replaced it with).
To repeat what's previously been stated herein ad nauseum since it didn't seem to be comprehended the first time: my objection is the inclusion in a Wikipedia article of inflammatory remarks that are unsupported by the given references. I am not pretending to be nor is it my responsibility to be an expert on coyotes or other subject I or anybody else edits in Wikipedia; I get irked when I read an article I was expecting to inform me and others only to find that substantiation of important remarks in it are nonexistent or flimsy at best, in any case falling well short of scholarly standards. Such language needs to be either substantiated (with appropriate referencing) or removed. Substantiation is the responsibility of the author, not the reader, so I removed the offending remarks; they should stay removed until they are substantiated by legitimate, rigorous reports. Remarks in newspaper articles by reporters, county sheriffs and pet owners who may or may not know a coyote kill when they see it do not qualify.
Beech Drifter and Innotata, you seem to be suggesting that authors who submits articles - however biased or unsubstantiated - to Wikipedia are entitled to have them kept there unaltered until another reader/editor goes to the trouble of disproving the remarks therein; this is not valid. The gist of the Wikipedia standard is: document your remarks sufficiently or suffer their removal (i.e. no "original research" (or facsimile thereof")). This is the standard I have applied. Accordingly, would you please refrain from re-inserting the material I have omitted until it is substantiated with objective, knowledgeable sources?
If you want to change the language to remove the implication that coyotes rely on pets for their dietary needs and replace it with something elsewhere to the effect of "there are a number of anecdotal reports in the US popular press suggesting that pets, feral dogs and cats and other small animals sometimes are killed and eaten following incidental encounters with coyotes in and near urban environments", that might be fair since such a remark is what the quoted and other available substantiation supports. I am not saying that I know that coyotes never kill pets et al; I am saying that the pet-related remarks in the article I originally encountered were not supported by the indicated references. If you want something more included in this article then cull the research and document your findings in legitimate sources.
Can we agree that, very conservatively speaking, probably a quarter-million coyotes are running loose in the US at this moment and, over the record of US newspaper publishing, at least 10 million coyotes have lived long enough to die of old age? Undoubtedly a few of them have encountered feral dogs and cats and even genuine pets, so it's none too surprising that some of these encounters have found their way into the popular press (which sometimes repeatedly documents the same encounters if you search for them using Google or Bing). What is therefore surprising is that, given the number of extant coyotes, such reports aren't far more frequent if pet predation is a common coyote behavior. Such reports demonstrate nothing about the general habits of coyotes i.e. the coyote population in general, as the article at hand should be expected to do.
The noted Google search is all well and good, some of the results of which which may even be reliable and objective and, in any case, almost none of which were included in the original article as I found it; certainly there was no specific in-line reference to anything from the 21st Annual ... Conference (which may or may not be an objective proceeding given the title). Audubon Magazine does not pretend to adhere to scholarly standards of objectivity and as should not be cited as such; I would be very surprised if they would not admit that they have numerous agendas.
You are still entirely missing the point here. You can not remove content from an article because you personally find the sources "unsubstantiated". The sources meet wikipedia guidelines, end of story. Again I must refer to your original edit summaries as your reasons for the removal, in which you made it clear you had a problem with the content, not the sources. However I have no problems adding a few more sources to the article since it is clear there is no lack of them. Beach drifter (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting to be inclined to simply agree with Beach drifter here. However, I'd ask that neither of you make any further edits until this can be resolved (I probably should ask the page be locked already). The sources provided are by experts on the subject, and seem very balanced to me (did you actually read the Vertebrate Pest Conference article, or know how zoology works?), and there's nothing better. News or feature articles in a magazine like Audubon or a newspaper would still be a perfectly reliable source in most contexts, as Wikipedia's guidelines point out. This looks like a very simple fact, worded with reasonable (though not perfect) neutrality, that Beach drifter is saying should be kept; any controversy that exists in the real world is over the importance and implications of attacks by coyotes. —innotata 18:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The following sources already cited in the article mention coyote predation on pets (by note number): 11, 23, 57, 61, 62, 73, 75. Beach drifter (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, then, as long as you accept the legitimacy of Audubon reportage, I do find it interesting that, Innotata, in your efforts to buttress Beach Drifter's remarks herein, you offer both an Audubon article (and a website the authors of which were the major source for the remarks in the Audubon article), that says:
Before we started our study, it was thought that coyotes are successful in urban areas because they eat garbage and pets,” says Gehrt. “Some coyotes do that, but the majority don’t. (p.80)
The same holds true nationwide. "Most of our results are similar to what Stan [Gehrt] has seen,” says Paul Curtis, who oversaw Cornell University’s coyote behavioral ecology study, which radio-collared 40 animals in New York’s Westchester County from 2006 to 2010. “Their diet is primarily a natural diet. We found very few anthropogenic sources—a few scraps of garbage, bits of plastic, cigarette butts. A lot of white-tailed deer.” (p.81)
So, not only therefore demonstrated is the lack of legitimate substantiation of the original remarks as I found them, but I have gone beyond the call of duty in documenting the opposite to be valid (in the very source referenced by an attempted Beach Drifter supporter). A grossly unqualified remark like "Coyotes usually attack smaller sized dogs" is demonstrably untrue, inflammatory and misleading. Accordingly would you please follow your own advice and leave the article alone, as I have edited it, until better documentation is included? The vast majority of readers of Wikipedia never even bother to look at the Discussion pages to see if there's a controversy over a particular article, so to allow demonstrably unsubstantiated and misleading remarks to remain, even temporarily, is to perpetuate the misrepresentation.
Beach Drifter, not one of your referenced footnotes documents the predation of pets by coyotes - any eyewtitness who demonstrably knows the difference between a feral dog and a coyote, an examination by a trained wildlife officer - anything. Of the references you supplied, the best of them is the quote of the police press release that is utterly vague as to how it was determined that some pet was killed by a coyote in some unspecified past incident; there's another story of a pet death I previously noted herein that isn't worth discussing further. And that's the best of em.
Your "end of story" remark is ridiculous, utterly unfounded and you know it. Wikipedia has policies on source reliability; to quote them:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles.... The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.... Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.
So those footnotes are what you come up with? Do you even read the material you reference before so doing? Several of your footnotes quote the same researcher I quoted above in my comments on the Audubon article who says coyotes don't rely on eating pets.
Innotata: do you know anything about logic, epistemology, scholarship or ethics - the fount of my original editing efforts? Have you read and comprehended the previous comments herein before deciding to weigh in? Many of the cited references do not document what their "citer" claims they document. You can find a lot of articles and news reports on UFOs - that doesn't mean flying saucers exist; it just means that numerous people think they've seen something they thought was a UFO, and no Wikipedia article on UFOs or flying saucers should say more than that. Same goes for coyotes and their alleged predilection for eating pets.
The 21st ... Conference paper looks interesting - far more substantial than the garbage that's been offered so far; it also wasn't specifically referenced (per Wikipedia policy) in the excised remarks as I originally found them, which calls into question whether the author of those remarks relied on it before making them. Consequently your comment herein that the pet remarks are substantiated by the best sources is contradicted by your own evidence.
But thank you for acknowledging the Aububon article, Innotata, for its existence (and the fact that no one has referenced it previously despite the fact that it was published in 2004) just further proves the legitimacy of my efforts:
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.... For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may [or may not] be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles .... When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
No one's arguing that coyotes never attack pets; my argument is that the article, as it pertains to coyotes and pets, contains unqualified, inflammatory and unsubstantiated remarks contrary to accepted scholarship about activity that happens infrequently and tries to pass it off as common, expected coyote behavior, and is therefore at least misleading if not downright deceptive. It fails the objectivity standard by failing to acknowledge contrary information.
This is not a matter of my personally disagreeing with valid sources (as you repeatedly try to make it); the issue is that the sources do not appear to exist, do not substantiate what their "citer" claims, or are not the best available information.
The excised remarks were clearly written (and are maintained?) by parties with an agenda using unsubstantiated remarks while trying to pass themselves off as objective gatekeepers (otherwise how to explain the instantaneous offer to fix the article's problems?). Until the remarks I excised are properly documented with legitimate knowledge i.e. existing scholarship, and their language and emphasis changed to reflect that knowledge, they should be left out of the article (especially the remark referenced by footnote no. 61 - the source does not come up and the referenced information is blatantly contradicted by the information in Audubon I quoted earlier herein (common sense tells you there's no way to distinguish whether examined scat reflects a pet or a feral cat)). The material referenced by footnote no. 57 is also blatantly contradictory to the overall emphasis of the referenced study and needs to go. And the entire first paragraph under "Diet and Hunting" is misleading, unsourced and, again, blatantly contradicted by material I've cited herein so, until Wikipedia adopts a method for flagging controversial remarks in the body of the article, these remarks and the others I've noted herein need to go until they're fixed (if they can be). Of course that's what I'm tried to do with my edit....

Coyotes do kill cats:

Look at | this for example. Coyotes (Canis latrans) pose a risk to domestic cats (Felis catus).

It says:

We captured, radiocollared, and tracked 8 coyotes from November 2005 to February 2006 for 790 hours in Tucson, Arizona, USA. We observed 36 coyote-cat interactions; 19 resulted in coyotes killing cats. Most cats were killed in residential areas from 2200 hours to 0500 hours during the pup-rearing season. Single coyotes were as effective killing cats as were groups (>1) of coyotes. Documented cases of predators killing cats could encourage cat owners to keep their cats indoors and assist wildlife managers in addressing urban wildlife issues.

This documents many cases of coyotes killing small dogs, many when someone was walking them on on leash.

There are many more. Don't take it from me, Google Scholar has many more such evidence.

Give it up! There is so much proof that Coyotes kill many pets every year, and the numbers are increasing. Why you refuse to believe it, I can only speculate. Maybe you just like coyotes and don't want to believe pets are killed by them. What would it take to convince you? Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As a coyote advocate, I have to admit that coyotes will sometimes opportunely kill cats and dogs, sometimes prey on them and possibly become habituated to them as a food source, and there is even anecdotal reports of them luring dogs into areas where a pack is waiting. They are an extremely adaptable and intelligent creature. What is important is some kind of perspective that considers the big picture (what % does this account for in the overall coyote diet) and how is the reporting of evidence we use impacted by the negative reactions we tend to have when a predator impacts our lives. For example, while a cat or killed by a coyote is news, one killed by a car is not. You might like to look at [3]. This article could also look at the many ways people are being advised to live more safely alongside coyotes. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The article about the coyote/cat study does recommend that all cats stay indoors when there are coyotes around, so that's a possible addition to the article about ways to live more safely around coyotes, which isn't a bad idea, although Wikipedia can't recommend anything, we could I suppose report that others do if stated carefully. The other article about the attacks on dogs and people doesn't recommend that all small dogs and small people also stay inside when there are coyotes around, but I gleened that advice from reading it. If reliable sources recommend things to keep dogs and people safe around coyotes beyond staying indoors, there might be a way to phrase it so that it doesn't violate the idea about Wikipedia not becoming a "How To" and remembering that it's an encyclopedia, not a How To book. Please agree that in general if Wikipedia started giving people advice all the time it would be bad, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with citing statements that experts say running doesn't work but standing your ground does or whatever as the case may be.
Having said that, the article you have shown me here qualifies as a reliable source. We could use it to footnote statements in the article, but you don't seem to want to use it in that way. You seem to want to use it to justify removing other statements and citations from the article. That approach is not going to work. You might be sucessful in your mission to balance the POV of the article if you added a statement with this as a citation in a certain way. If you did that in the right way, you could achieve some of the "balance" for the pro-coyote side. For example, you might say "in a study done in Canada, it was found that press reports about Coyote attacks left a biased impression for this reason" or whatnot. That has a chance of working. You can't use this citation to things such as delete all the documentation about Coyotes killing pets, facts that might leave the reader with a negative impression of them, and so on, you will just fail and fail I predict until you give up.
I for one welcome people with points of view to work on articles. I have points of view on the things I work on, and I work on them because I like them or don't and this emotion motivates me to work on them. If your love of coyotes motivates you to improve this article, that's good. But your opinion that coyotes are good or bad view can't become that of the article. The article is just the facts, whether they could make a reader pro- or anti- coyote or whatever shouldn't come into play. Chrisrus (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rotweillers?[edit]

Yes, that was an odd edit and you were right to revert it. However, I checked the citation and it's just one case. Can we really say that Coyotes are known to attack such large and powerful dogs based on this citation? Maybe we should say "in at least one case" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Coydogs are a myth[edit]

Coydogs. As the name implies, a coydog would be a cross between a coyote and a dog. But according to Chrissie Henner, a biologist at the Massachusetts Division says that "there has never been any physical evidence of a half-dog, half-coyote animal."

Further, coyotes and red wolves do breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckean108 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That is likely true in the wild, in as much as coyote-dog hybrids have reproductive problems and could most likely not sustain a breeding population of pure hybrids. However, coyotes and dogs can interbreed successfully to make a coydog for one generation at least. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:COYDOG.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:COYDOG.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:COYDOG.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2012[edit]

The map used to indicate the range of the Coyote does not include the Maritime Provinces in Canada where there exist hundreds of Coyote.

Sethrenaud (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Editing the map is impossible Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wording Problems in one section[edit]

"On May 15th, 2012, a 14-year old Cape Breton, Nova Scotia child's Motocross boots helped him survive a coyote attack" This sentance in the section about attacks on children is nonesensical. It needs to be reworded so that it has a clearly defined subject, object, and correlating verb. I'd do it myself, but I can't, for the life of me, make head or tail of it. AaronCarson (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

On this date, a 14-year old Canadian child's motocross boots helped him survive a coyote attack. Chrisrus (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack lists[edit]

Why are we adding to and encouraging expansion of "Attacks on Children" and "Fatal attacks"? This seems undue and contrary to WP:NOTDIR. --NeilN talk to me 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We could look to the article Wolf for a model. It has a section on the topic, but as the list of fatal attacks was too long after a while it was spun off into the article Wolf attacks on humans. Chrisrus (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I will split the article now. --NeilN talk to me 06:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. If I screwed up, I'm sure someone will tell me :) --NeilN talk to me 06:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Coyote attacks on children in California, '78-'03[edit]

What should we do with the following?

A study published in 2004 [1] documented 35 incidents (not all listed) in which a child escaped likely "serious or fatal injury" if the child had not been rescued in time, including:

• In May, 1978, a coyote bit the leg of a 5-year-old Pasadena, CA girl in the driveway of her home.

• In May, 1979, a coyote grabbed by throat and cheek a 2-year-old Pasadena, CA girl who had been eating cookies on her front porch.

• In July, 1979, in Pasadena, CA, coyotes lacerated the leg of a 17-year-old girl who was attempting to save a dog from being attacked.

• In August, a coyote attacked a 5-year-old La Verne, CA girl. Her father and a neighbor saved the child from being dragged off, but not before she had suffered deep bites on neck, head, and legs.

• In July, 1980, a coyote grabbed a 13-month-old Agoura Hills, CA baby by the midsection and started dragging her off. The baby suffered puncture wounds but was saved by her mother.

• In August, 1988, a coyote nipped and bruised a 4-year-old Oceanside, CA boy who had been playing in his yard.

• In August, 1988, a coyote in Oceanside, CA bit the rollerskate of an 8-year-old girl who had just fallen but was chased away by two women throwing rocks.

• In August, 1988, a coyote in Oceanside, CA grabbed 3-year-old girl by the leg, pulled her down, and then bit her on head and neck before being chased off by her mother and neighbors.

• In June, 1990, in Reds Meadow, CA, a coyote bit a 5-year-old girl on the head while she was sleeping at a campground.

• In May, 1992, a coyote attacked a 5-year-old San Clemente, CA girl, biting her several times on her back. The girl climbed her swing set to escape, and her mother chased the coyote off.

• In October, 1992, in Fallbrook, CA, a coyote bit a 10-year-old boy on the head while he was asleep on back porch of a residence.

• In March, 1995, in Griffith Park, CA, a 5-year-old girl was knocked down twice by a coyote before being saved by her mother.

• In June, 1995, a coyote chased three boys on University of California, Riverside property, biting a 7-year-old.

• In July, 1995, a Griffith Park, CA coyote was chased away once, but returned and bit the leg of a 15-month-old girl.

• In Sept, 1995, a coyote attacked a 3-year-old Fullerton, CA girl in her yard, biting her face, head, and thigh.

• In November, 1995, a coyote on UC Riverside chased playing children, biting a 3-year-old boy.

• In June, 1996, a coyote grabbed a 3-year-old Los Altos, CA boy’s head and hand and began dragging him toward some bushes before he was saved by his 15-year-old brother.

• In February, 1997, a coyote severely bit a 4-year-old girl in her yard in South Lake, Tahoe. The heavy snowsuit she was wearing protected all but her face, and she was rescued by her father. The coyote stayed in the unfenced yard until police arrived and shot it dead. Earlier that morning, the coyote had bitten the hand of a man who was feeding it.

• In May, 2000, in La Mesa, CA a 3-year-old boy was bitten on his side, resulting in 4 puncture wounds.

• In June, 2001, in Northridge, CA, a coyote seriously injured a 7-year-old, but was finally fought off by her mother.

• In July, 2001, a coyote bit a 3-year-old Irvine, CA boy in the leg while he was playing in his yard. The boy was saved by his father.

• In October, 2001, in San Clemente, CA, a coyote attacked three children playing on a schoolyard, biting and scratching an 8-year-old girl on back of neck and a 7-year-old boy on the back and arm. A third student was also attacked, but the coyote only bit his backpack.

• In November, 2001, a coyote that a San Diego, CA family had been feeding bit their 8-year-old daughter.

• In December, 2001, in San Gabriel, CA, a coyote bit 3-year-old girl in the head, grabbed her shoulder and started to drag her away, but was chased coyote off by her father.

• In May, 2002, in Anza Borrego State Park, a coyote bit a boy, who was sleeping in a sleeping bag, on the head.

• In May, 2003, in Highland, CA, a coyote came into a neighbor’s garage after 2-year-old girl, biting her on arm.

• In August, 2003, in Apple Valley, CA, a coyote attacked a 4-year-old boy on a golf course, biting him on face and neck before he was saved by father.

I would say that rather than list them all, I think we should summarize the stats for that period in time. Steven Walling • talk 23:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That's an idea. It is quite long. If we do collect every attack on a child on this continent, we can see that now, it's going to be a very large percentage of the article. Other ideas include spinning it off into a separate article, or collapsing it so that you have to hit "show" to see it, of course together with the summary you talk about. Chrisrus (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Timm,, Robert M., University of California, Davis; Baker, Rex O., California State Polytechnic-Pomona (retired); Bennett, Joe R., USDA APHIS Wildlife Services; Coolahan, Craig C., USDA APHIS Wildlife Services (3/3/2004). "; Coyote Attacks: An Increasing Suburban Problem" (in English). Hopland Research and Extension Center. p. 47-49. Retrieved 6/25/2012. From the information gathered, we now list 89 coyote attacks in California (incidents when one or more coyotes made physical contact with a child or adult, or attacked a pet while in close proximity to its owner) (Table 1). In 56 of these attacks, one or more persons suffered an injury. In 77 additional encounters (not listed), coyotes stalked children, chased individuals, or aggressively threatened adults. In 35 incidents (not all listed), where coyotes stalked or attacked small children, the possibility of serious or fatal injury seems likely if the child had not been rescued.  Check date values in: |date=, |accessdate= (help)

Edit request on 21 June 2012[edit]

For the communication section for the coyotes page I'd like put in wherever appropriate and fitting, both grammatically and with the flow of information, to be the phrase "It is because of the variety of their calls that they are called 'songdogs' or 'song dogs.'" I used both to show that it can be written both with and without a space. TankCoyote (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  TOW  talk  09:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 Sep 2013[edit]

For the URL link in footnote 42, re : "Coyotes kill Toronto singer in Cape Breton", which no longer works, I found the identical story is now at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/coyotes-kill-toronto-singer-in-cape-breton-1.779304 - could the link in footnote 42 please be amended to its new URL. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenMott (talkcontribs) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

fidelity[edit]

Huffington Post just published some data from a recent study done by researchers from Ohio State University which show that (urban) coyotes are 100% monogamous. This seems like an interestingly enough factoid to be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Percentages[edit]

"A study showed that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry, and one was 89% wolf."
"An article in the Albany Times-Union cites Roland Kays, curator of mammals at the State Museum of New York, as contending that preliminary results of DNA evidence in eastern coyotes suggests interbreeding and a genetic makeup of 85–90% coyote, perhaps 10% wolf and slightly less than 5% dog. – "'a giant canis soupus,' Kays quipped."[35]""

I take the word '"contending" to imply a contrast here; however, the first paragraph concerns individuals, while the second appears to be discussing population percentages. Thus there is no disagreement.- if 20% are 50% wolf, the population average is 10% wolf. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's still broken. It says: "A study showed that of the 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more grey wolf ancestry, and one was 89% grey wolf." In other words, one of the coyotes was 89% wolf. The coyote was almost 90% wolf. It makes no sense. An animal that is 90% wolf is not a coyote. How to fix it? Some quotation marks around the word "coyote"? "A study showed that of the 100 "coyotes" collected in Maine, 22 had half or more grey wolf ancestry, and one was 89% grey wolf." How's that? I'm open to other solutions. Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need some expert help on the terminology. Seems like all hybrids of any percentage are being labelled "coyote". Is this standard usage in the field? Chrisrus, I see the merit of your idea; quotation marks do seem appropriate here. Maybe we should make that small change as an interim measure until we get more input. Heavenlyblue (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Map[edit]

As requested, I have provided File:Coyote subspecies distribution map.svg, a map of the known subspecies of canis latrans. Happy to modify it if advised. Hel-hama (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article in The Economist[edit]

Interesting article Urban coyote: Dogged persistence FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pelt Prices[edit]

If this article was not protected, I would note in the "pelts" section that coyote pelts are becoming increasingly valuable with each passing fur season. In fact, during the year 2013 auction season, good-quality prime pelts averaged close to $100 each wholesale (used as fur trim).

http://trappingtoday.com/index.php/category/fur-prices/

The historically high prices paid for coyote pelts parallel the rise in prices for all furs, but are remarkable because coyote pelts are considered among the lowest quality furs (suitable only for trim). Coyotes are no longer economically important _just_ because of the damage they cause, but increasingly because of the worth of their fur. This leads to another interesting phenomenon that readers of this article may want to be made aware of: because of these high prices, many trappers are no longer quite as willing to trap "nuisance" coyotes at any time of the year. Rather, they are waiting till prime furbearing season (the height of winter) to set most of their K9 traps. This brings them into conflict with landowners, who usually want the coyotes gone no matter what time of year it is.

Some claim that this shift in trapping habits will serve to _increase_ coyote numbers (which are already skyrocketing) because the killing of coyotes during furbearing season does not have as great an impact on population numbers as does killing during times of the year when pups are dependent on their parent.

Bottom line: the 'pelts' section should be updated with current prices. Most people have no idea that coyote trapping/hunting is so lucrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.150.162 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Extant and extinct subspecies[edit]

Which, if any, of these subspecies are known only from fossils and such, and which are existent? The extinct ones should be marked with a "†" symbol. Chrisrus (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

At the moment there are no listed subspecies of coyotes that were ever marked as extinct since most known subspecies are based on living coyotes who are descended from the western populations.

However, it is known from a 2011 research on the genetic studies of Coywolves in the east by Zoologist Roland Kays of the New York State Museum that there used to be a population of a Pre-Columbian eastern coyote that lived in the northeastern region of the continent at one point. This population became extinct before Columbus' arrival hence the tentative label, however, they were never given any official subspecies label because they weren't known about until more recently through the DNA analysis of the modern day northeastern coyotes and because it was once thought that coyotes never arrived in the east until the later 19th century. These early coyotes are believed to had originated from an earlier wave of migrants from the western region into the northeastern regions through Canada perhaps before the early Grey wolves arrived in the eastern North America from Eurasia. The exact cause of their extinction is unknown, however, human impacts as well as hybridization with the original eastern and Atlantic Grey wolf populations is suspected to have been among the cause for this. However, the genes from these extinct coyotes may still be around in the modern day Eastern wolves and northeastern coyotes. Around 600-900 years ago, the Grey wolves in the eastern Canada may have suffered from persecutions by fur-hunters as well as minor deforestation including the viking settlements on the continent. The depleted population of these earlier Grey wolves who would naturally wipe out coyotes that enter their turf would begin to seek potential mates resulting with these two species interbreeding thus giving rise to the Eastern wolf population. These hybrids eventually began to dominate much of the eastern Canada and the northeastern USA and diluting all of the remnant Grey wolf populations in the east with the exception of the Manitoban wolves, Hudson Bay, Great Plains, and the Labrador wolves since their populations were still fairly stable and so interbreeding with the Coywolves was not necessary at the time. But years later when Columbus arrived, the Coywolves eventually backcrossed extensively with the new western coyotes migrating in and thus giving rise to these newer northeastern coyotes (Canis latrans thamnos).

So while the original Pre-Columbian eastern coyotes are extinct, their DNA still lives in the modern day Coywolves though also mixed in with the western coyotes and Grey wolves thus making things even more complicated when trying to decipher which haplotype belonged to these extinct coyotes. Nosferatuslayer (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What subspecies are found in La Brea? I was told coyotes are the animal third most commonly found there. Chrisrus (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Range[edit]

There are plenty of them in the Mohave desert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.155.66 (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

matings with wolves[edit]

"Coyotes have also been known, on occasion, to mate with wolves, mostly with eastern subspecies of the grey wolf such as the Great Plains Wolf, though this is less common than with dogs, due to the wolf's hostility to the coyote." [emphasis mine]

This seems to contradict at least one of the studies cited:

"...DNA evidence for eastern coyotes suggesting interbreeding and a genetic makeup of 85 to 90% coyote, perhaps 10% wolf and slightly less than 5% dog..." [emphasis mine]

This seems to suggest that matings with wolves are more common and/or more fertile than with dogs, in contradiction to the earlier statement, though perhaps sampling in a remote area vs. near a built-up area could skew the numbers one way or another in any of these studies. Heavenlyblue (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be right. Just delete everything after "...Great Plains Wolf." Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable removing that without a little more discussion. Does anyone know why that was included, or what the source of that idea might be? (i.e. "Coyotes have also been known, on occasion, to mate with wolves, ... though this is less common than with dogs, due to the wolf's hostility to the coyote.") Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I just checked the references and encourage you to do the same. I found nothing to support the bit about wolfdogs being anywhere near as common as coywolves, but rather the opposite. See the articles coywolf, Eastern coyote, Red wolf, and Eastern Wolf. There are untold millions of eastern coyotes alone. If you research about wolfdogs, you will see that they are quite rare in comparison. So the bit after "...Great Plains wolf..." doesn't seem to be in the citation, contradicts the citation, and seems to contradict what other articles and more importantly their sources say about the relative population sizes of coydogs and coywolves. Combine these facts and study the sentence and it seems someone just stuck that on there because he thought it was true, because maybe he knows that wolves generally kill coyotes and coyotes fear wolves, so how could they be mating? Which makes sense, but not in light of such facts as the millions of Eastern Coyotes and so on now known to exist and so few wolfdogs known to exist. So don't worry. Chrisrus (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of information in this paper: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/21/8/1294.full I'll try to make my way through it in detail when I have time. I think that the problem is not that any of the given statements are untrue per se, but that the whole picture may have to be presented in more detail, with reference especially to the region(s) sampled and the particular types of wolves and coyotes. Perhaps a chart is in order here. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Canis lupus latrans?[edit]

Given the recent taxonomic unification of dogs and wolves (even dingos) in a single species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

It's surprising that the coyote has been left to its own separate species. Are there any genetic studies demonstrating a uniqueness belonging to the coyote? Kortoso (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The study that determined the dog and wolf were genetically the same also looked at all other dog-like species including the coyote, and found that coyotes were genetically distinct enough from wolves/dogs to classify as a separate species. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
All species of genus Canis apart from the side-striped/blackbacked jackal branch are close enough to interbreed and sp closer than most species of one genus, because species of a genus normally cannot interbreed so easily. Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thx for clr. Maybe this can make its way into the article someday? :) Kortoso (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013[edit]

"they primarily hunt in pairs." cite needed. Bxtrclrk (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Partly done:. Ideally, this behavior would be discussed and referenced in the Diet and hunting section, but it's not even mentioned there. Some rearrangement and copyediting, as well as sourcing, are needed. In the meantime, I've tagged the sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Look here. We would seem to have our pick of citations, as in most of these studies found them mostly alone or in pairs in the study area. Notice I didn't say "all". Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Coyote and jackals[edit]

Transferred from my talk page:


Jackals

Let's just if we may stop and think about this for sec: what does "jackal" even mean?

I mean, what does it mean to say that coyotes aren't closely related to jackals when "jackal" just means "mid-sized canid" that lives the lifestyle that jackals do, regardless of lineage, relatedness, and so on?

Also, note that "coyote" is a Mexican word, originally, and that the original English word for them was "jackal", so a coyote is a jackal, too.

Don't take it from me, read the article Jackal. We could rightly say "The coyote is jackal endemic to North America"!

And coyotes are pretty closely related to the original referent of the word "jackal", Canis aureus, as Linnaeus called it, which is practically the same thing as a coyote and very different from the jackals of the Serengeti and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I will soon write a detailed answer, but transfer the discussion to the talk page. --KnightMove (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I comply with the article jackal, according to which the term is used in a stricter sense today, usually not including the coyote, but the not-so-closely related jackals of Serengeti which Chrisrus has mentioned. However, I have made up my mind that as long as the wolf is identified as the coyote's closest relative, there is no need to say too much about jackals. I rethink the introduction once more and will wait some 24 hours for other opinions. --KnightMove (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. The word "jackal" is sometimes problematic and better avoided. However, when making that edit, be sure to be clear that not all "coyotes" are C. latrans. In the northest, the animals commonly called "coyotes" contain significant propotions of "C. lycaon" DNA, sometimes more than 50%. Chrisrus (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hybridization: Red Wolf[edit]

This article contends that the red wolf is actually a coyote-grey wolf hybrid, citing a 2011 (I think) study. The Red wolf article denies that, citing a later study. The two articles need to be reconciled by somebody who can interpret the literature. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail in caption[edit]

I recently deleted text from image captions relating to the locations where the images were taken. An editor has reverted these and asked to take it here. I fail to see why the locations of these images are included in the captions. It does not add anything to an understanding of the animal. The fact the animal is in that location is usually covered by a section of text on "Distribution" or similar. If the location is considered necessary to show there is something noteable that is not included in another image, then the entire article could descend into a gallery of images of "Animal A in location X", "Animal A in location Y" and "Animal A in location Z". Potentially, all the images could show the animal performing the same behaviour and the only different information is the location - how bizzare that would be! Furthermore, in some cases, adding the location, such as Yosemite National Park, could be seen as advertising. How do we know the editor is not a member of staff of the park with a vested intrest.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with deletion. If there's nothing notable about the location it should be left out (especially if it's the lead image). --NeilN talk to me 18:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm seriously hoping your last point was said in jest... Coyotes and grey wolves live in diverse habitats and interact with varieties of different prey and competitors. A wolf living in North America is not going to live in the same environment, interact with the same animals or even have the same phenotype as a wolf living in India. It is important to show why these differences are apparent. Furthermore, you have not adressed the fact that adding location information is standard practice in zoology books and web resources. Why has wikipedia (suddenly) become exempt? Mariomassone (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You have completely proved my point! As someone who knows very little about canines, how does adding "Yosemite park" help me to understand these important differences. If these different ecological niches are noteworthy, yes the information should be included, perhaps even in the caption, but simply stating where an image is taken does not help the reader understand this. If the phenotype is different, how is it different? Again, simply giving the location does not help. Oh.... and I jest not.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. Looking at Britannica, none of the pictures in their coyote, wolf, or gray wolf articles have locations. --NeilN talk to me 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Very well then.Mariomassone (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Why such parsimony? I like to know where a photograph was taken. Does it do any harm to put that in the captions? If we must cut all but the most essential information, why have a caption that reads, "Mearns' coyote (C. l. mearnsi) pups playing"? They're obviously pups, and they're obviously playing. Why not cut the caption to "Mearns' coyote (C. l. mearnsi)"? Or, for that matter, just "Coyote"? Why indeed have a caption at all, since the subject of the photograph is obviously the subject of the article? Is strict minimalism Wikipedia policy? I think there's something to be said for a certain amiability of style, as long as it doesn't interfere with accuracy. Wikipedia should be not only informative but also a pleasure to read; and a little unnecessary information, as long as it's accurate, relevant, and not boring, can be pleasant. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I think the last sentence just about sums it up....it is so damn boring reading about the same animal but in different loacations! Especially when this is misleading that it implies the location is in some way important to understanding the animal and potential geographic differences. Your other concerns are also valid. If they are obviously pups, and they are obviously playing, this can be stated in the caption, but why the location? What does this add? I personally like photography and would like to see what camera lens, exposure, shutter speed, etc. it used. But, I am sure ths would bore the pants off many readers, but this is just as logical to include as the location. There is also scope for images not having a caption at all. In removing the location from captions, I have become very aware that many images in many articles are redundant - one image is very similar to another, only the location is different. I have resisted the temptation to delete these images. Please remember, the onus is on the editor to indicate why information in Wikipedia should be included.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Much of the detail about a given photo should be on he photo's page, not an article, Unless there is a particularly special reason to include location, leave it out; a "List of animals in foo"' locations is not useful. Captions need to support content. Montanabw(talk)

How about the captions at Herd? Some of those give locations, and I think they add useful information. By the arguments I'm hearing here, it would seem that not just the captions but the photos themselves should be deleted, since all they show is groups of animals, which the text already tells us a herd is. Why have illustrations at all, unless they show something that the text can't efficiently convey, such as molecular structure or the layout of an electrical circuit? My answer: people like them—they enrich the reader's experience. That's sufficient for me, but not, I would think, for people advocating parsimony.
I sense a kind of Wikipuritanism at work here. You may sing in public worship, but only from the Psalms, and only in unison and without accompaniment. Do we really need pictures of Edward Everett, or are they a needless frivolity? Is it important to know what he looked like, or shouldn't we stick to what he did in life? Granting the "usefulness" of illustrations, do we really need to know when the pictures of him were made, who made them, and whether they're paintings, engravings, or daguerreotypes? I say all of those things are worth telling the reader, and, even if they're not essential, it does no harm to include them in a caption.
Of course there are other considerations that need to be weighed as well. A caption should be of reasonable length, and relevant to the illustration. It should not duplicate the text or contain matter that would be better included in the text. Still, there's no need for strict minimalism. Discursive captions like, "Wildebeest at the Ngorongoro Crater; an example of a herd in the wild;" and "George Peter Alexander Healy's 1851 painting of Calhoun, with a rare smile; on exhibit at City Hall in Charleston, South Carolina;" explain what the picture is, and why it should matter to the reader. It's a matter of judgment, whether or not some of that information belongs on the illustration's page, rather than in the caption; and if I had written those captions I might have judged differently; but, assuming accuracy, I see no harm in leaving them as they are.
The argument, that the onus is on the editor to justify including information on Wikipedia, can be used to rationalize virtually any deletion. The "notability" standard is highly subjective, after all. Why have an article about every little train station in the UK, including ones that haven't existed for decades? Why have articles about beauty-pageant winners? Why have articles about athletes? Why have articles on every species of moth? Why have Wikipedia at all? I don't think anybody can justify it in objective terms, and the human race did just fine without it for millenia. Ultimately it all comes down to subjective judgment, and, within reasonable limits of accuracy, good English, and encyclopedic decorum, our tolerance for other editors' judgment should be fairly high. It's not as if space were strictly limited on the Web. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
For the most part (perhaps the full part), I have agreed with DrChrissy removing locations from captions. I think brevity is appropriate for captions. More information, and a fuller picture (pun intended) of what's going on can be had from reading the text or by going to the picture's page. That all said, I think this discussion is devolving into a general policy discussion and not a discussion about how to best serve the coyote article. I urge y'all to find an appropriate policy discussion page and hash things out there. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The point that images should be deleted if they simply show another herd in a different location is a good one. I have deleted some images bacuase of this, but I have left others in if the information is pertinent. For example, I have just been editing the Beaver article. There are two images of skeletons in there. The second one originally had a caption indicating it was from a museum. I have removed the location information and now we have two images both with the caption "A beaver skeleton". Clearly, one of them is redundant. Further down the Beaver article there is a section on urban beavers and their re-population. I made this into a multi image and put the location in the title - the location is clearly of relevance. I just wonder how editors would react if I started inserting multiple images of "Animal A in zoo X", "Animal A in zoo Y" and "Animal A in zoo Z". Clearly, 2 are redundant but which is the more "interesting" one if the only difference is location? To my mind, one of the images will be better than the others, but it is these qualities that make the image more interesting and informative, not the zoo it is in.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I posted the above as part of an edit conflict. A couple of other editors on other pages are also discussing this issue and I agree with UtherSRG that a more general policy discussion is required off the Coyote Talk page. How do we go about this?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy might be a good place to start. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I have opened the discussion here [4].__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's just the same players over there. (I kind of hate the drama boards). I'm going to dive in here and just boldly do what I think would be required of the images if this article were to be submitted for GA. Feel free to revert anything I do, but look at my choices and reasoning here. I've got somewhere close to 40 GA and FA-class articles that I admit to working on "substantially", and helped on more, plus have done reviews on others. So I have some idea of how this is supposed to work. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)