Index of Species Information
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Canis latrans
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Canis latrans
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tesky, Julie L. 1995. Canis latrans. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
COMMON NAMES :
The currently accepted scientific name for the coyote is Canis latrans
Say. It is in the family Canidae. Nineteen subspecies are currently
recognized, however; only 16 subspecies occur in Mexico, the United
States, and Canada [4,30]:
Canis latrans cagottis (Hamilton-Smith) (Mexican coyote)
Canis latrans clepticus Elliot (San Pedro Martir coyote)
Canis latrans frustror Woodhouse (southeastern coyote)
Canis latrans impavidus Allen (Durango coyote)
Canis latrans incolatus Hall (northern coyote)
Canis latrans jamesi Townsend (Tiburon Island coyote)
Canis latrans latrans (plains coyote)
Canis latrans lestes Merriam (mountain coyote)
Canis latrans mearnsi Merriam (Mearns coyote)
Canis latrans microdon Merriam (Lower Rio Grande coyote)
Canis latrans ochropus Eschscholtz (California valley coyote)
Canis latrans peninsulae Merriam (peninsula coyote)
Canis latrans texesis Bailey (Texas plains coyote)
Canis latrans thamnos Jackson (northeastern coyote)
Canis latrans umpquesis Jackson (northwest coast coyote)
Canis latrans vigilis Merriam (Colima coyote)
Fertile hybrids have been produced by matings of coyotes with feral dogs
(C. familiaris), red wolves (C. rufus), gray wolves (C. lupus), and red
foxes (Vulpes vulpes) [4,12]. Coyote-dog hybrids exhibit decreased
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
OTHER STATUS :
Information on state- and province-level protection status of animals in
the United States and Canada is available at NatureServe, although
recent changes in status may not be included.
WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Canis latrans
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Coyotes are found from Costa Rica to northern Alaska, and from coast to
coast in the United States and Canada. The highest densities occur in
the Great Plains states and in south-central United States. Coyotes are
absent from the barrens and Arctic islands of northern Canada, including
much of northern Quebec, northern Newfoundland, and Labrador. Coyotes
are uncommon where gray wolf populations are high in northeastern
Minnesota, northern Alaska, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and
Ontario. The distribution of coyotes in eastern North America has
expanded during this century. In some states such as Florida and
Georgia, coyotes have been introduced [4,12,43]. Today, all eastern
states and provinces have at least a small population of coyotes .
Distribution of the subspecies is listed below [61,66]:
Mexican coyote - Occurs in Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi, Pueblo, and
Veracrus, Mexico. Its range may extend into southern Nuevo Leon and
southern Tamaulipas, Mexico.
San Pedro Martir coyote - Occurs in northern Baja California and
southwestern California (mostly San Diego County).
southeastern coyote - Occurs in southeastern and extreme eastern Kansas,
Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas.
Durango coyote - Occurs along the Pacific coast drainage of western
Mexico between about 22 degrees and 26 degrees north latitude, extreme
southern Sonora, extreme southwestern Chihuahua, western Durango,
western Zacatecas, and Sinaloa.
northern coyote - In Canada, northern coyotes occur in Yukon Territory,
the Northwest Territories, northern British Columbia, and northern
Alberta. In the United States, northern coyotes occur in most of Alaska
except the southeastern coastal section.
Tiburon Island coyote - Occurs on Tiburon Island off Baja California.
plains coyote - In Canada, plains coyotes occur in southeastern Alberta,
southern Saskatchewan, and the extreme southwestern corner of Manitoba.
In the United States, they occur in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado east
of the Rocky Mountains, and the northeastern corner of New Mexico; North
Dakota except the northeastern quarter; northwestern Oklahoma, and the
northern Panhandle region of Texas.
mountain coyote - In Canada, mountain coyotes occur in southern British
Columbia and southeastern Alberta. In the United States, they occur in
Oregon and Washington east of the Cascade Range, northern California,
Idaho, western Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado (except the southeast
corner), northern and central Nevada, and northern and central Utah.
Mearns coyote - Occurs in southwestern Colorado, extreme southern Utah
and Nevada, southeastern California, northeastern Baja California,
Arizona, west of the Rio Grande in New Mexico, and Sonora and Chihuahua
Lower Rio Grande coyote - Occurs in extreme southern Texas and northern
California valley coyote - Occurs in California west of the Sierra
Nevada, except in the northern part.
peninsula coyote - Occurs on the Baja California peninsula.
Texas plains coyote - Occurs in Texas, except for the northern panhandle
region, the eastern part, and the extreme southern tip. Texas plains
coyotes also occur in eastern New Mexico except for the northeastern
corner, and part of northeastern Mexico.
northeastern coyote - In Canada, northeastern coyotes occur in
north-central Saskatchewan, Manitoba (except the extreme southwestern
corner), southern Ontario, and extreme southern Quebec. In the United
States, northeastern coyotes occur along the eastern edge of North
Dakota and in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri (north of the Missouri River),
Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois (except the extreme southern portion), and
northwest coast coyote - Occurs west of the Cascade Range in Oregon and
Colima coyote - Occurs along the southwestern Pacific slope of Jalisco,
Michoacan, and Guerrero, Mexico.
FRES10 White-red-jack pine
FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES42 Annual grasslands
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
Coyotes probably occur in all Kuchler plant associations.
SAF COVER TYPES :
Coyotes probably occur in all SAF cover types.
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
Coyotes probably occur in all SRM (rangeland) cover types.
PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Coyotes evolved in a plains environment and were historically most
numerous in western grasslands where large ungulate populations were
high. Coyotes flourished in the shortgrass-steppe, semiarid sagebrush
(Artemisia spp.)-grasslands, and deserts, and they ranged from deserts
and plains to alpine areas of adjacent mountains .
Today, range expansions indicate that coyotes can be successful in any
plant community from the tropics of Guatemala to the tundra of northern
Alaska . Although they occur in most plant communities throughout
their range, coyotes do show some preferences. In the Intermountain
region, coyotes are closely associated with sagebrush communities.
Coyotes in eastern Nevada preferred black sagebrush (Artemisia nova)
flats to other habitats. These flats were areas of highest black-tailed
jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) densities . In the Sierra Nevada,
California, coyotes inhabit almost every plant community and
successional stage. However, they prefer grass-forb and shrub-conifer
seedling-conifer sapling communities .
BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Canis latrans
TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS :
Social organization - There is a considerable amount of variability in
coyote social organizations. In many areas, most coyotes are solitary
outside of the breeding season. In other areas, such as Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, and Jasper, Alberta, groups of coyotes are frequently observed.
Coyote social organization is influenced by prey size. In populations
where the major prey items throughout the year are small rodents,
coyotes tend to be solitary. In populations where large animals are
available (e.g., elk [Cervus elaphus], and deer [Odocoileus spp.]),
large groups of coyotes form .
Breeding season - Courtship may begin as early as 2 to 3 months before
coyotes attempt to mate. The female is monoestrous, having one period
of heat per year usually between January and March [4,62]. Estrus lasts
2 to 5 days. Some coyotes mate with the same individual from year to
year, but not necessarily for life . In the Sierra Nevada, coyotes
mate from February to May, with peak breeding time in April and May .
Yearling females usually breed later in the season than older females
Age at first breeding - Both males and females are capable of breeding
as yearlings . However, many coyotes do not breed until their second
year . Generally, about 60 to 90 percent of adult females and 0 to
70 percent of female yearlings produce litters . In years when food
is abundant, more females (especially yearlings) breed. In years when
rodent populations are high, as many as 75 percent of yearling females
may breed .
Gestation and litter size - Gestation lasts approximately 63 days. The
average litter size is 6, but may range from 3 to 15 [12,63]. Litter
size can be affected by population density and food availability.
Knowlton  reported average litter sizes of 4.3 at high coyote
densities and 6.9 at low coyote densities. In years of high rodent
density, mean litter size is generally higher than in years of low
rodent densities .
Development of young - Coyote young are born with their eyes closed.
They are cared for by the mother and sometimes siblings from a previous
year. The father and other males often provide food for the mother and
the young. Pups emerge from the den in 2 or 3 weeks. They begin to eat
solid food at about 3 weeks of age and are weaned at about 5 to 7 weeks
of age .
Dispersal of juveniles - Juvenile coyotes usually disperse alone or
sometimes in groups at 6 to 9 months of age during October to February.
However, some juveniles do not disperse until their second year.
Juvenile coyotes may disperse up to 100 miles (160 km) from their den
. In Minnesota, Berg and Chesness  reported mean dispersal
distances of 30 miles (48 km) that occurred at a mean rate of 7 miles
(11 km) per week . Juvenile dispersal distances averaged 17 to 19
miles (28-31 km) in Alberta , 4 miles (7 km) in Arkansas , and 3
to 4 miles (5-6 km) in California .
Activity and movements - Coyotes are active day and night, with peaks in
activity at sunrise or sunset. Generally, activity and movements such
as foraging are greatest at night. Andelt  found that daytime
activity increased during the breeding season. In Arkansas, Gipson and
Sealander  found that young were more active than adults during the
Life span - Coyotes in captivity may live as long as 18 years, but in
wild populations few coyotes live more than 6 to 8 years. The maximum
known age for a wild coyote is 14.5 years .
PREFERRED HABITAT :
Coyotes occupy a broad range of habitats [4,12,64]. Almost any habitat
that supports prey populations also supports coyotes; however, some
preferences have been noted (refer to PLANT COMMUNITIES slot) .
Dens - Coyotes den in a wide variety of places, including brush-covered
slopes, steep banks, rock ledges, thickets, and hollow logs. Dens
previously used by other animals (e.g., American badgers [Taxidea
taxus]) are frequently used . Dens are usually about 1 foot (0.3 m)
in diameter and from 5 to 25 feet (1.5-7.5 m) long . They usually
have more than one entrance and many interconnecting tunnels. The same
den may be used from year to year. Den sharing occurs only rarely
[4,12]. Movement of pups from one den to another is very common. The
reason is unknown, but disturbance and possibly infestation by parasites
may be factors. Most moves are over relatively short distances;
however, moves over 2.5 miles (4 km) are not uncommon .
Home range and territory - A single home range may be inhabited by a
family of two or more generations, a mated pair, or a single adult.
Home ranges vary from an average of 2 square miles (5 sq km) in Texas
 to averages of 21 to 55 square miles (54-142 sq km) in Washington
. Males tend to have larger home ranges than females. In
Minnesota, male home ranges averaged 16 square miles (42 sq km), whereas
those of females averaged 4 square miles (10 sq km). The home ranges of
males overlapped considerably, but those of females did not . In
Arkansas, Gipson and Sealander  reported that male coyote home
ranges were 8 to 16 square miles (21-42 sq km) and female home ranges
were 3 to 4 square miles (8-10 sq km).
In southeastern Colorado, the home range size of coyotes varied with
habitat, which was correlated with prey abundance. Coyotes in canyon
woodlands and in hills dominated by pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus
spp.) woodlands interspersed with grassland and shrubland had the
smallest home ranges. Coyotes in pinyon-juniper-prairie had
intermediate-size home ranges, and coyotes in shortgrass prairie had the
largest home ranges. As the amount of pinyon-juniper increased, home
range size decreased, possibly because these areas had high small mammal
populations and provided cover for resting sites and dens. The
shortgrass prairie had the lowest relative abundance of small mammals in
the study area .
Group size and social behavior may also influence home range size.
Coyotes living in packs and defending ungulate carrion during winter may
have smaller home ranges than coyotes living in pairs or alone [12,64].
Typically, only pack members defend territories; pairs of coyotes and
solitary individuals do not [4,12].
COVER REQUIREMENTS :
Coyotes commonly hunt in open to semiopen areas [12,18,51]. In
California coyotes used ecotones, fuelbreaks, roads, trails, and open
chaparral more than dense unbroken cover. In southern California where
chaparral is adjacent to unbroken areas, coyotes forage at night along
edges and return during the day to chaparral cover. The steep slopes
and heavy cover of most chaparral communities impede coyote movements
. In Georgia, the proportion of open area in coyote home ranges was
significantly (P<0.04) greater than that generally available in the
area, and the proportion of forest was significantly (P<0.04) less .
Coyotes use cover for daytime resting and den sites. In Georgia, areas
with "sufficient" cover were used more for daytime rest sites, and early
successional and open areas were used more for nocturnal foraging. In
summer, some coyotes used corn fields for cover during the day .
Urban coyotes in Seattle, Washington, foraged in residential areas, but
only in areas that were immediately adjacent to forest cover. Forested
areas provided the majority of cover, including denning sites .
FOOD HABITS :
Coyotes are opportunistic feeders and eat a variety of food [4,12,64].
About 90 percent of their diet consists of animal matter; however, they
also eat vegetable matter. Some common prey items include deer, elk,
sheep (Ovis spp.), rabbits and hares (Leporidae), various rodents
(Rodentia), ground-nesting birds, amphibians, lizards, snails, fish,
crustaceans, and insects. During winter, much of the diet is made up of
rabbits, hares, and the carrion of large ungulates. Small mammals,
especially voles and mice (Muridae), are important food items during
spring, summer, and fall [4,64]. Various berries are also eaten .
An extensive study of coyote food habits conducted in 17 western states
showed that major diet items were lagomorphs (33%), carrion (25%),
rodents (18%), and domestic livestock (13.5%) . Coyote diets in
sagebrush habitat of northeastern Utah and south-central Idaho consisted
of about 75 percent black-tailed jackrabbits year-round . In
northeastern California, meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) occurred
in about half of all coyote scats analyzed. Other important diet items
were mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and cattle, probably eaten as
carrion . Mule deer were also important in coyote diets in two
areas of southern Utah. In central Wyoming, mule deer, pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana), white-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus townsendii),
and desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audubonii) were present in 63 percent
of coyote scats . On Arizona cattle ranges, where the habitat was
primarily open grasslands, oak (Quercus spp.), juniper, and ponderosa
pine (Pinus ponderosa), coyote diets contained high percentages of plant
material. Juniper berries were particularly important, followed by
prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) fruit .
Mountain lions (Felis concolor) sometimes kill and eat coyotes .
Other predators of coyotes include humans, gray wolves, black bears
(Ursus americanus), and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). Golden eagles
(Aquila chrysaetos) attack young coyotes .
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Coyotes are the principal predator of domestic sheep in the West .
Predation on sheep often occurs in the summer . In 16 studies
reviewed by Sterner and Shumake , coyotes were responsible for 82
percent of all sheep losses due to predators. However, only a few
flocks typically showed sizeable losses . Coyote predation is a
minor cause of most livestock losses. Most of the livestock consumed,
except sheep, is carrion .
Methods of coyote control have been described in the literature
[1,4,12,64]. The impact of predator control on coyote population
densities, behavior, and ecology are not well known. Coyote populations
are able to maintain themselves under considerable human-induced
mortality. Their means of survival include behavioral adaptations and
biological compensatory mechanisms such as increased rates of
reproduction, survival, and immigration. In most areas, coyote numbers
likely are controlled by competition for food and by social stress,
diseases, and parasites . There is little evidence to support the
notion that coyote predation is a primary limiting factor on populations
of large ungulates .
Coyote population control efforts may affect the social organization and
activity patterns of coyotes. In areas where population control is not
practiced, most coyotes exist in relatively "large" groups, whereas
coyotes in areas where populations are controlled generally exist in
"smaller" groups. Coyotes have been reported as more active during the
day in uncontrolled [26,70] than in population-controlled areas . Roy
and Dorrance  reported that coyotes avoided open areas near roads
during daylight hours in areas where they were hunted.
Coyotes often aid in the dispersal of seeds. Seeds of oneseed juniper
(Juniperus monosperma) and Indian manzanita (Arctostaphylos mewukka)
have been found in coyote scats [24,31].
Coyotes are inflicted with a wide variety of parasites and diseases
which are described by Gier and others .
FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Canis latrans
DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS :
Coyotes are very mobile and can probably escape most fires. There are
no reports of direct coyote mortality due to fire .
HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS :
Fire may improve the foraging habitat and prey base of coyotes. In New
England, coyotes are commonly found in forest openings created by fire
or logging . Fires that reduce vegetation height and create open
areas probably increase hunting efficiency by coyotes. Surface fires
often open substrates for quieter stalking and easier capture of prey
than can occur in closed forests . Wirtz  noted increases in
consumption of birds and deer by coyotes after a chaparral fire in the
San Dimas Experimental Forest, California. Increased consumption was
presumably the result of increased vulnerability of prey with reduced
cover, but no change was noted in small mammal consumption.
Periodic fire helps to maintain habitat for many prey species of coyote.
Fires that create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas are probably the
most beneficial to many coyote prey species. Several studies indicate
that many small mammal populations increase rapidly subsequent to
burning in response to increased food availability. Fire often improves
hare and rabbit forage quality and quantity for two or more growing
seasons . Hill  concluded that burning at intervals longer than
2 years would be less beneficial to rabbits and hares, but any fire is
believed better than fire exclusion. Along the coast of northern
California, black-tailed jackrabbits occurred at highest density in open
brush, moderate density on recent burn areas, and lowest density in
mature chaparral stands . Wagle  reported that fire suppression
in grasslands is detrimental to populations of small bird and mammal
herbivores due to organic matter accumulation and reduced plant vigor.
The 1988 fires in Yellowstone National Park have probably benefited
coyotes. Fire in combination with drought likely increased available
carrion the fall and winter following the fire. Additionally, the fires
stimulated grass production, which should lead to an increase in small
mammal populations .
In California, coyotes are abundant in young chaparral (less than 20
years old) and are rare or absent in chaparral that has not been burned
for 20 years or more . Quinn  observed more coyote sign during
the second and third years after a chamise (Adenostoma spp.) chaparral
wildfire in Riverside County than had been observed prior to burning.
Coyote numbers increased during the second and third years following a
chaparral fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills .
FIRE USE :
Prescribed burning that favors small mammals by creating ecotones and
different age classes of vegetation would increase the prey base for
coyotes and make hunting easier by opening up the habitat .
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
References for species: Canis latrans
1. Andelt, William F. 1985. Behavioral ecology of coyotes in South Texas. Wildlife Monograph 94. Washington, DC: Wildlife Society. 45 p. 
2. Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 438 p. 
3. Barrett, Reginald H. 1983. Food habits of coyotes, Canis latrans, in eastern Tehama County, California. California Fish and Game. 69(3): 184-186. 
4. Bekoff, Marc. 1977. Canis latrans. Mammalian Species. 79: 1-9. 
5. Bell, M. M.; Studinski, G. H. 1972. Habitat manipulation and its relationship to avian and small rodent populations on the Decanso District of the Cleveland National Forest. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 21 p. 
6. Bendell, J. F. 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. In: Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York: Academic Press: 73-138. 
7. Berg, W. E.; Chesness, R. A. 1978. Ecology of coyotes in northern Minnesota. In: Bekoff, M., ed. Coyotes: biology, behavior and management. New York: Academic Press: 229-247. 
8. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. 
9. Bradley, Lisa C.; Fagre, Daniel B. 1988. Coyote and bobcat responses to integrated ranch management practices in south Texas. Journal of Range Management. 41(4): 322-327. 
10. Brown, David E. 1982. Alpine and subalpine grasslands. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 109-111. 
11. Bullock, Stephen H. 1980. Dispersal of a desert palm by opportunistic frugivores. Principes. 24(1): 29-32. 
12. Chapman, Joseph A.; Feldhamer, George A., eds. 1982. Wild mammals of North America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1147 p. 
13. Clark, Frank W. 1972. Influence of jackrabbit density on coyote population change. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36(2): 343-356. 
14. Clary, Warren P. 1987. Overview of ponderosa pine bunchgrass ecology and wildlife habitat enhancement with emphasis on southwestern United States. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 11-21. 
15. Cornett, James W. 1985. Germination of Washingtonia filifera seeds eaten by coyotes. Principes. 20(1): 19. 
16. Crabtree, Robert L. 1991. Effects of 1988 fires on ecology of coyotes in Yellowstone National Park: baseline preceding possible wolf recovery. In: Plumb, Glenn E., ed. University of WYoming National Park Service Research Center: 15th annual report 1991. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming: 219-226. 
17. Davis, Russell; Sidner, Ronnie. 1992. Mammals of woodland and forest habitats in the Rincon Mountains of Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. Technical Report NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/06. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit. 62 p. 
18. DeGraaf, Richard M.; Yamasaki, Mariko. 1986. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-108. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 491 p. 
19. Denyes, H. Arliss. 1956. Natural terrestrial communities of Brewster County, Texas, with special reference to the distribution of the mammals. The American Midland Naturalist. 55(2): 289-320. 
20. Edwards, R. Y. 1954. Fire and the decline of a mountain caribou herd. Journal of Wildlife Management. 18(4): 521-526. 
21. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. 
22. Fulbright, Timothy E.; Diamond, David D.; Rappole, John; Norwine, Jim. 1990. The coastal Sand Plain of southern Texas. Rangelands. 12(6): 337-340. 
23. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. 
24. Germano, David Joseph. 1978. Response of selected wildlife to mesquite removal in desert grassland. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 60 p. M.S. thesis. 
25. Gese, Eric M.; Rongstad, Orrin J.; Mytton, William R. 1988. Home range and habitat use of coyotes in southeastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 640-646. 
26. Gipson, Philip S.; Sealander, John A. 1972. Home range and activity of the coyote (Canis latrans frustror) in Arkansas. Proceedings, Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 26: 82-95. 
27. Gier, H. T. 1975. Ecology and social behavior of the coyote. In: Fox, M. W., ed. The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology, and evolution. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: 247-262. 
28. Gier, H. T.; Kruckengerg, S. M.; Marler, R. J. 1978. Parasites and diseases of coyotes. In: Bekoff, M. W., ed. Coyotes: biology , behavior and management. New York: Academic Press: 37-71. 
29. Green, Gregory A.; Anthony, Robert G. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor. 91: 347-354. 
30. Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1271 p. 
31. Kauffman, J. Boone; Martin, R. E. 1991. Factors influencing the scarification and germination of three montane Sierra Nevada shrubs. Northwest Science. 65(4): 180-187. 
32. Hawthorne, Vernon M. 1971. Coyote movements in Sagehen Creek Basin, northeastern California. California Fish and Game. 57(3): 154-161. 
33. Hawthorne, Vernon M. 1972. Coyote food habits in Sagehen Creek Basin, northeastern California. California Fish and Game. 58(1): 4-12. 
34. Howard, Volney W., Jr. 1988. Importance of pinyon-juniper woodlands to wildlife. In: Fisher, James T.; Mexal, John G.; Pieper, Rex D., tech. coords. Pinyon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico: a biological and economic appraisal. Special Report 73. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station: 45-47. 
35. Johnsen, Thomas N., Jr. 1962. One-seeded juniper invasion of northern Arizona grasslands. Ecological Monographs. 32(3): 187-207. 
36. Knowlton, Frederick F. 1972. Preliminary interpretations of coyote population mechanics with some management implications. Journal of Wildlife Management. 36(2): 369-382. 
37. Krefting, Laurits W. 1951. What is the future of the Isle Royale moose herd? Transactions, 16th North American Wildlife Conference. 16: 461-470. 
38. Landers, J. Larry. 1987. Prescribed burning for managing wildlife in southeastern pine forests. In: Dickson, James G.; Maughan, O. Eugene, eds. Managing southern forests for wildlife and fish: a proceedings; [Date of conference unknown]; [Location of conference unknown]. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-65. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station: 19-27. 
39. Lawrence, George E. 1966. Ecology of vertebrate animals in relation to chaparral fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ecology. 47(2): 278-291. 
40. MacCracken, James G.; Hansen, Richard M. 1987. Coyote feeding strategies in southeastern Idaho: optimal foraging by an opportunistic predator? Journal of Wildlife Management. 51(2): 278-285. 
41. MacCracken, James G.; Uresk, Daniel W. 1984. Coyote foods in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(4): 1420-1423. 
42. MacPhee, Douglas T. 1991. Prescribed burning and managed grazing restores tobosa grassland, antelope populations. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1): 35-36. 
43. Martell, Arthur M.; Dickinson, Dawn M.; Casselman, Lisa M. 1984. Wildlife of the Mackenzie Delta region. Occasional Publ. No. 15. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta, Boreal Institute for Northern Studies. 214 p. 
44. McAdoo, J. Kent; Klebenow, Donald A. 1979. Native faunal relationships in sagebrush ecosystems. In: The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium: Proceedings; 1978 April; Logan, UT. Logan, UT: Utah State University, College of Natural Resources: 50-61. 
45. Mills, Susan M., editor. 1989. The Greater Yellowstone postfire assessment. [Denver, CO]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. [Pages unknown]. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. 
46. Minta, Steven C.; Minta, Kathryn A.; Lott, Dale F. 1992. Hunting associations between badgers (Taxidea taxus) and coyotes (Canis latrans). Journal of Mammalogy. 73(4): 814-820. 
47. Murie, Adolph. 1951. Coyote food habits on a southwestern cattle range. Journal of Mammalogy. 32(3): 291-295. 
48. Nellis, Carl H.; Keith, Lloyd B. 1976. Population dynamics of coyotes in central Alberta, 1964-68. Journal of Wildlife Management. 40(3): 389-399. 
49. Nichols, R.; Menke, J. 1984. Effects of chaparral shrubland fire on terrestrial wildlife. In: DeVries, Johannes J., ed. Shrublands in California: literature review and research needed for management. Contribution No. 191. Davis, CA: University of California, Water Resources Center: 74-97. 
50. Ortega, J. C. 1987. Coyote food habits in southeastern Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 32(1): 152-155. 
51. Quinn, Ronald D. 1990. Habitat preferences and distribution of mammals in California chaparral. Res. Pap. PSW-202. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 11 p. 
52. Ramirez, Bernardo Villa. 1974. Major game mammals and their habitats in the Chihuahuan Desert region. In: Wauer, Roland H.; Riskind, David H., eds. Transactions of the symposium on the biological resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region, United States and Mexico; 1974 October 17-18; Alpine, TX. Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 155-161. 
53. Reichel, James D. 1991. Relationships among coyote food habits, prey populations, and habitat use. Northwest Science. 65(3): 133-137. 
54. Schwartz, John E., II; Mitchell, Glen E. 1945. The Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 9(4): 295-319. 
55. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. 
56. Sperry, Charles C. 1941. Food habits of the coyote. Wildlife Research Bulletin 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 70 p. 
57. Springer, Joseph Tucker. 1982. Movement patterns of coyotes in south central Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(1): 191-200. 
58. Spowart, Richard A.; Samson, Fred B. 1986. Carnivores. In: Cooperrider, Allan Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R., eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center: 475-496. 
59. Holzman, Stephen; Conroy, Michael J.; Pickering, John. 1992. Home range, movements, and habitat use of coyotes in southcentral Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(1): 139-146. 
60. Stenner, R. T.; Shumake, S. A. 1978. Coyote damage-control research: a review and analysis. In: Beckoff, M., ed. Coyotes: biology, behavior and management. New York: Academic Press: 297-325. 
61. Terres, J. K., ed. 1964. The world of the coyote. Philadelphia; New York: J. B. Lippincott Company. 150 p. 
62. Van Gelden, Richard George. 1982. Mammals of the National Parks. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 310 p. 
63. Verner, Jared; Boss, Allan S., tech. coords. 1980. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-37. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 439 p. 
64. Voigt, Dennis R.; Berg, William E. 1987. Coyote. In: Novak, M.; Baker, J. A.; Obbard, M. E.; Malloch, B., ed. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 344-357. 
65. Wagle, R. F. 1981. Fire: its effects on plant succession and wildlife in the Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 82 p. 
66. Young, Stanley P.; Jackson, Hartley H. T. 1951. The clever coyote. Harrisburg, PA: The Stockpole Company. 405 p. 
67. Hill, Edward P. 1981. Prescribed fire and rabbits in southern forests. In: Wood, Gene W., ed. Prescribed fire and wildlife in southern forests: Proceedings of a symposium; 1981 April 6-8; Myrtle Beach, SC. Georgetown, SC: Clemson University, Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute: 103-108. 
68. Wirtz, William O., II. 1977. Vertebrate post-fire succession. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical coordinators. Symposium on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems: Proceedings; 1977 August 1-5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 46-57. 
69. Andelt, William F. 1985. Behavioral ecology of coyotes in South Texas. Wildlife Monograph 94. Washington, DC: Wildlife Society. 45 p. 
70. Andelt, William F.; Gipson, Philip S. 1979. Domestic turkey losses to radio-tagged coyotes. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43(3): 673-679. 
71. Roy, Laurence D.; Dorrance, Michael J. 1985. Coyote movements, habitat use, and vulnerability in central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(2): 307-313. 
FEIS Home Page