Seattle Has 9 Times More Coyotes Per Square Mile Than Washington’s Wildlands

Urban Living Suits Coyotes Better Than the Wild, Seattle Study Finds

Seattle packs roughly nine times more coyotes into every square mile than the wild forests and mountains of northern Washington, according to a new DNA-based study.

Researchers, publishing in the journal Environmental Research: Ecology, reached that number by testing DNA from 842 coyote droppings collected across Seattle parks, cemeteries and golf courses, and in two forested regions of the state. They identified 261 individual coyotes and used the genetic data to calculate population density in each place, finding close to 1 coyote per square mile in Seattle compared to roughly 1 coyote for every 9 square miles in the wildlands.

Yet the city is not uniformly coyote-friendly. The most densely populated Seattle neighborhoods had fewer coyotes, not more, while income, tree cover, pollution and pavement made little difference. Seattle appears to support far more coyotes than the wildlands studied, but the animals still steer clear of its busiest, most crowded corners.

DNA From Droppings Uncovered 261 Individual Coyotes

Counting coyotes is not like counting deer at a feeder. These animals are shy, mostly active at night, and easy to miss. So the research team, based at the University of Washington, relied on scat, the polite term for droppings.

Over one summer, volunteers surveyed 34 Seattle green spaces roughly every two weeks. In the wildland regions, centered near Winthrop and Chewelah, teams drove dirt roads over three summers between 2018 and 2020. Of 261 coyotes identified, 48 lived in Seattle and 213 were spread across the two rural areas. The team then used spatial capture-recapture, a statistical method that tracks how often the same coyote shows up in different spots, to estimate density. The Seattle figure comes from a single summer, while the wildland figure is averaged across three, making both estimates rather than exact counts.

Researchers also tested what factors pushed coyote numbers up or down in Seattle: human population density, income, tree cover, paved surface coverage, and pollution exposure. Only human density showed a real effect, and it was negative: neighborhoods packed with more people had fewer coyotes. West Seattle was left out of the analysis because no coyote scats or sightings turned up there during the study, a gap the researchers treat as a likely anomaly.

Relaxed Hunting and Fewer Predators Favor City Coyotes

It might seem backwards that an animal hunted and trapped for generations would thrive in the middle of a major American city. But the study’s authors suggest this makes sense once the differences in how coyotes are treated in each setting come into view.

Out in the wild parts of Washington, coyotes face constant threats from people. Hunting them is allowed year-round with no bag limit, and rural residents often shoot coyotes on sight. Related work tracking radio-collared coyotes and bobcats in those areas found hunting and trapping caused the majority of known deaths, while only one coyote died from being hit by a vehicle. In Seattle, removing a coyote for causing conflict happens only about once every two to three years.

Wild coyotes also share territory with bigger predators. Wolves, cougars, and black bears are common in the rural study areas, and coyotes there were found avoiding places where wolves and cougars were most active. Some pups were killed by wolves, and adults died in cougar and bear encounters. Those larger predators are absent or extremely rare within Seattle city limits, though cougars and black bears do turn up in the surrounding suburbs. The authors suggest that with less predation and hunting pressure inside the city, coyotes in Seattle may face far less risk of being killed.

Food matters too. Cities offer coyotes options unavailable in the forest, from fruit trees and garden produce to rabbits and rodents that thrive alongside people. A related analysis of the same scat samples found coyote diets in Seattle included more than twice as many food types as the wildland coyotes, though the authors cannot say exactly how much that variety drives the density gap.

Wealth Does Not Buy More Coyotes in Seattle

One popular theory in urban ecology is called the “luxury effect,” the idea that wealthier neighborhoods have more trees and green space, and therefore more wildlife. Researchers expected this pattern might hold for coyotes too.

That is not what they found. Median household income showed no clear connection to coyote numbers anywhere in the city. This lines up with research on coyotes in California and Chicago, where wealthier areas were either avoided or showed no particular draw. Surveys of San Francisco residents have even found less tolerance for coyotes among wealthier households, which could help explain why money does not translate into more animals.

Other suspects researchers expected to matter, like paved surfaces and pollution exposure, didn’t pan out either.

Coyotes did not evolve to live in dense conifer forests, and the study indicates they may be scarce in the truly wild parts of the Pacific Northwest compared to open habitats elsewhere in the country. The authors suggest that relaxed hunting pressure, fewer large predators, and abundant food may make Seattle an especially favorable habitat, even as the busiest blocks still keep the animals at arm’s length. A coyote spotted in a quiet Seattle green space has found a way to make city life work in its favor.

---

Disclaimer: This article summarizes findings from a peer-reviewed study and includes reasonable interpretation of the authors’ own discussion. It is intended for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for guidance from wildlife officials on coyote encounters or conflicts.

---