Read all about it here: Christian Science Monitor – Coyotes and Cats

Many of the standard GIS layers that we utilize, such as transportation lines, political boundaries, natural features, etc., are provided by state and local government agencies. This data is not always free.  There is a good deal of overlap, and occasionally conflicting data among agencies, and don’t get me started on the beast of aerial imagery. In many cases, our clients must provide the imagery for their project area, driving a continuous cost-benefit analysis to determine the appropriate degree of quality vs. data cost for every project. 

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a one-stop shop for GIS layers?  This dream may be realized in the not-so-distant future.  GIS managers across the land are pushing to form a nationwide system of imagery and spatial data, focusing on standardizing spatial data and imagery, eliminating data overlap, and minimizing costs of data maintenance.  The data would be collected and stored by a government agency and available for public use. This is good news for us taxpayers because it may be available to all of us, for free! 

Stay tuned for updates, and in the meantime, check out this cool article . . .  Government GIS Layers

Long-billed birds peck at a coiled rattlesnake and a Mexican Earth Monster dashes towards the afterlife on a prehistoric Hohokam bowl and plate Sharon Urban (AKA Shurban) found as a graduate student. “They’re the most exciting artifacts I’ve discovered,” She said of the cremation vessels. 

“It was August and hot. Too hot for me to dig for fear of passing out.” Shurban and other members of the Arizona State Museum’s Highway Salvage Section were surveying a section of the proposed I-19 highway right-of-way, two miles south of San Xavier Mission during the summer of 1965. “I was wandering the desert, aimlessly, searching for anything when I found the exposed upside down portion of the bowl.”  She ran to tell the crew leader of her find.  “They wouldn’t let me dig it up,” she said.  “They thought I was too inexperienced.” 

“I knew what is was the moment I saw it, I just didn’t know how unique it was.”  Further excavation revealed an intact bowl sitting upside down over a plate. “The plate was cracked, but all the pieces were there.” At first the dirt-covered find didn’t illicit jaw-dropping expressions from her fellow archeologists but after it was cleaned:  “Oh-wow,” was what everybody said. 

On the face of the 14-inch diameter red plate is a beige Mexican Earth Monster, “a cross between a coati-mundi and a road runner. It has a long curved bill or beak with two ears or feathers sticking up, a long neck, and four legs with toes on its feet.” And while the monster has been found carved into shells, this is the only known pottery example. The artwork on the bowl is one of a kind. A coiled rattlesnake, with a triangular head and two eyes, rests within the six-inch diameter bowl. Sixteen long-billed birds, of various sizes, surrounded the snake and peck at it.  “There are no other examples like it anywhere,” Shurban said. 

Unfortunately, nobody knows what the elaborate designs mean or the history of the plate and bowl. “They may have been made especially for a cremation, but that is only a possibility. We don’t really know.” 

But we do know a little bit about the person that was buried in them. The bowl contained cremation remains of a 45-year old man, and dated to the 1200s, according to Walter Birkby, a forensic anthropologist who analyzed the vessel’s contents.  Cremation was a common practice among the Hohokam.  On method of disposing of the remains after burning was scraping the ash and bone pieces into a bowl and inverting it over a plate, then burying the lot in a pit.  

The cremation vessel “caused a stir,” Shurban said.  “Everybody came to see it.” The bowl and plate became one of the Arizona State Museum’s most important artifacts.  They have been featured in several books (The Hohokam Millennium (2007), The Hohokam Desert Farmers and Craftsmen: Excavations at Snaketown, 1964-1965 (1976)) and replicas have been produced.  “The fake ones contain scheit, a florescent mineral, so archeologists can tell the difference.” 

The bowl and plate remained at the Museum for many years, stored with other pottery.  “In deference to the Native Americans, they couldn’t be displayed because of their religious connotation.”  In the 1990s they were re-patriated with the Tohono O’Odham Nation, and are now stored in their facility in Sells, Arizona. 

“Finding such unique artifacts boosted my status, at least for a little while” Shurban said.  “They let me dig after that.”

The responsible development of human use infrastructure is a core value all of us at Harris Environmental Group hold. To support the addition of a much needed second runway at Tucson International Airport, we developed all supporting documentations for an Environmental Impact Statement to determine the effects on the natural environment. We helped our client be successful by providing the full range of natural, environmental, and cultural resources specialists required. This project included developing a Biological Assessment, conducting a Class III archeological Survey, and conducting a Preliminary Initial Site Assessment. It exemplifies the full range of solutions we bring to every project we are entrusted with by our clients.

Harris Environmental Group developed numerous environmental compliance studies and reports for Tucson Electric Power’s new 345Kv transmission line between Sahuarita and Nogales. We conducted environmental review for line siting, as well as threatened and endangered species studies. We formulated a Biological Assessment in support of an Environmental Impact Statement sponsored by the Department of Energy, and conducted surveys for endangered species and provided expert witness testimony to the Arizona Corporation Commission concerning environmental studies. When you call on Harris Environmental Group to manage your project’s environmental, natural, and cultural resources needs, you can be assured that we will bring the same focus and discipline that has made us a valued partner to some of the best-run organizations in the western United States.

Beginning in 2006, we conducted all environmental compliance documentation for the Lambert Lane road widening project, including threatened and endangered species surveys, archeological surveys, development of Clean Water Act Section 404 Jurisdictional Delineations, and Arizona Department of Transportation’s Environmental Determination document. As with many of our projects, we helped our clients successfully balance the needs of many stakeholders over a long period of performance.

During the design and engineering phase of the project, Harris Environmental Group conducted all environmental compliance documentation for the addition of a frontage road along Interstate-19 near Canoa Road. We conducted threatened and endangered species surveys, archeological surveys, development of Clean Water Act Section 404 Jurisdictional Delineations, and completed the Arizona Department of Transportation’s Environmental Determination document. Our transportation clients face a myriad of governing regulations and policies, and they know when they call on Harris Environmental Group, we will keep their project on sure footing from start to finish.

Our valued client, CPE Consultants, requested rezoning from the Pinal County Board of Supervisors on a tract of land for a proposed landfill. We conducted a Class III Archaeological Survey of 500 acres of undeveloped land in southern Pinal County, Arizona to support this request. We updated site information for four pre-historic sites and recorded one new historic site. The pre-historic sites consisted of scattered pottery shards and the new historic site consisted of a can scatter. Harris Environmental Group was able to help our clients be successful in developing this critical human-use area in a manner that responsibly preserves the integrity of the area’s natural and human history.

Read the fascinating full article here:

Safety for free-roaming pets has been a concern in some urban areas due to increasing numbers of coyotes (Canis latrans; McClure et al. 1995, Grinder and Krausman 1998) and attacks on people and their pets (Baker and Timm 1998, Timm et al. 2004). Between September 2003 and March 2007, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) received 127 reports from citizens of Tucson, Arizona, USA, about coyotes; 14.2% (n = 18) were from people that lost a pet to a coyote or observed a coyote carrying a domestic cat (Felis catus) or dog (Canis lupus familiaris; E. Ostergaard, AGFD, unpublished data). Because coyotes are prevalent throughout Tucson (Grinder and Krausman 1998, 2001) residents are encouraged by AGFD to keep cats and small dogs indoors. The Humane Society maintains the Safe Cats™ campaign encouraging cat owners to keep cats indoors to protect them from hazards, including predators (The Humane Society of the United States 2003).

Although coyotes prey upon domestic cats, which have contributed 13.1% of the diet of coyotes (MacCracken 1982, Shargo 1988, Quinn 1997), the literature does not describe coyote–cat interactions or the group size of coyotes involved in killing cats. Our objectives were to describe the group size of coyotes involved in coyote–cat interactions, time and location of interactions, and outcomes of interactions.

STUDY AREA

Tucson, Arizona was located in eastern Pima County within the Santa Cruz River valley (Sellers and Hill 1974). Tucson encompassed approximately 587 km2 and had an estimated population of 543,587 (Department of Urban Planning and Design 2006). Average annual temperature was 20.4° C with an average annual rainfall of 32.3 cm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). Tucson had a matrix of stream channels (i.e., washes) throughout the city that were dry most of the year. Washes provided a natural corridor for wildlife species and were thick with native vegetation including velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), white-thorn acacia (Acacia constricta), catclaw acacia (A. greggii), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), and paloverde trees (Parkinsonia spp.) that provide cover.
We trapped coyotes within the Colonia Solana (CS) and El Encanto neighborhoods and the Randolph Golf Course in central Tucson. Randolph Golf Course was adjacent to CS and separated from the neighborhood by a 2-lane road, bicycle and walking path, and a 2.5-m-high chain-link fence. A city park was also adjacent to CS. The golf course and park provided open space for coyotes. Both neighborhoods had 2–7 residences/ha. Lots in both neighborhoods included native and exotic vegetation. The wash ran through the southern end of CS.

METHODS

We used padded leg-hold traps (no. 3 Victor Soft Catch Coilspring, Lititz, PA) for 15 days in November 2005 and 7 days in February 2006 to catch coyotes. We placed traps on trails and in washes used as travel corridors by coyotes. We covered traps during the day to minimize catching nontarget animals. We restrained trapped coyotes with a noose pole and muzzle and used cable ties to hobble their legs. We fitted coyotes with radiocollars (Global Positioning System [GPS] Store-On-Board Model TGW-3402; Telonics, Mesa, AZ) and released them at sites of capture. We randomly selected coyotes to follow in 4-hour tracking sessions between 1800 hours and 1000 hours (i.e., 1800–2100 hr, 2200–0100 hr, 0200–0500 hr, 0600–1000 hr), visually located them when possible, and recorded activity (e.g., traveling, bedded, eating) by season (i.e., breeding [Jan–Feb], gestation [Mar–Apr], pup rearing [May–Aug], dispersal [Sep–Dec]). Because coyotes inhabited an urban setting they were accustomed to vehicles and pedestrians and our activity did not likely interfere with their behavior. City street lights generally provided adequate light to observe coyotes except when they were in large vacant areas, golf courses, or residents’ yards; we then used triangulation to locate coyotes. We made observations and triangulations from a vehicle. Our study protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, University of Arizona (protocol no. 05-183).

RESULTS

We radiocollared and tracked 8 coyotes (6 M: 2 <12 months old, 4 >2 yr old; 2 F <12 months old) between November 2005 and February 2006. Seven were residents and 6 were members of one pack. Between December 2005 and November 2006 we tracked coyotes for 790 hours to obtain observations and triangulations. During this time we observed 36 coyote–cat interactions, of which 19 resulted in coyotes killing cats; killing did not occur in 17 interactions. Coyote–cat interactions occurred in residential areas (n = 33; 18 resulted in a cat-kill), one in a commercial area (no kill), and 2 in vacant lots (one resulted in a kill). Most interactions (n = 31) occurred between sunset and sunrise (16 resulted in a kill) and 5 occurred before sunset or after sunrise (3 resulted in a kill). We recorded interactions in each tracking period (i.e., 1800–2100 hr [n = 3], 2200–0100 hr [n = 10], 0200–0500 hr [n = 18], 0600–1000 hr [n = 5]) and season: breeding (3 interactions, 1 kill), gestation (2 interactions, 2 kills), pup rearing (25 interactions, 13 kills), and dispersal (6 interactions, 3 kills). The alpha male was involved with 12 cat-kills, other adults were involved with 9, juveniles with 12, and in 6 interactions we could not determine status of the coyotes. In the 17 interactions that did not result in a kill, the alpha male, other adults, juveniles, and other coyotes were involved in 2, 10, 8, and 3 interactions, respectively. We observed 45 instances of coyotes consuming prey and fruit: 19 cats (42%), 15 unidentified rodent species (33.3%), 8 lagomorphs (17.8%), 1 bird (2.2%), and in 3 observations coyotes consumed dates (6.6%). Feeding behavior of coyotes was variable when they killed cats. In 18 interactions coyotes consumed the cat and in one interaction a human disturbed the coyote, which then left without the cat. Coyote–cat interactions involved 5 coyotes/interaction: 19 interactions included single coyotes (7 kills), 10 interactions included 2 coyotes (6 kills), 2 interactions included 3 coyotes (1 kill), 3 interactions included 4 coyotes (3 kills), and 2 interactions included 5 coyotes (2 kills). When 3 coyotes (n = 7) were together at a kill they would each tear at the carcass, but when only 2 coyotes were present (n = 10) they took turns feeding. Single coyotes killed cats in 7 observations. When >1 coyote was involved in a coyote–cat interaction, cats were not killed more often than when one coyote was involved in the interaction (Fisher’s exact test, P = 0.054).

Of the 17 interactions that did not result in a cat-kill, 10 involved chasing cats (by 1–2 coyotes); 4 involved one coyote circling, batting at, or lunging at cats; 2 involved the coyote being chased by a cat (the coyote was circling the cat, which then began to chase the coyote); and the other involved a coyote that appeared to ignore the cat. The latter interaction involved a coyote, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and cat. The coyote chased the raccoon up a tree then lay down within 15 m of the cat.

DISCUSSION

When interactions involved one coyote and one cat (12 of 19 interactions), cats were killed in 7 instances. A cat could sometimes defend itself against a lone coyote, but coyotes are often in groups >2 (70% of observations; S. Grubbs, University of Arizona, unpublished data) and any cat outside is vulnerable to coyote attack. Pet safety is a concern relating to urban coyotes (Baker and Timm 1998, Grinder and Krausman 1998) but is easy to alleviate by keeping pets indoors. If all cat owners committed to keeping cats inside, then only feral cats would be available to coyotes. Recognizing the negative impact that feral cats have on wildlife and their potential to spread disease (Hawkins 1998, Patronek 1998, The Wildlife Society 2006), coyote predation on feral cats could have benefits for wildlife.

Management Implications

We recommend that pet owners keep their cats indoors. Although it is known that coyotes prey on domestic cats, documented cases might help convince cat owners of the dangers their cats face when allowed to free-roam. Documenting coyote–cat interactions could help emphasize to pet owners the importance of keeping their pets indoors and could provide guidelines for wildlife managers to address the problem.

Acknowledgments

E. Ostergaard provided data and reviewed earlier drafts of this manuscript. L. G. Fornaro, J. Melton, and H. Koeing assisted with trapping and darting. M. Rice assisted with tracking. This study was funded by the Arizona Game and Fish and Department, the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Boone and Crockett Program in Wildlife Conservation, University of Montana.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Baker R. O., Timm R. M. 1998. Management of conflicts between urban coyotes and humans in Southern California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 18: 299–312.
2. Department of Urban Planning and Design. 2006. Tucson update. City of Tucson Department of Urban Planning and Design. . Accessed 17 May 2007.
3. Grinder M., Krausman P. R. 1998. Ecology and management of coyotes in Tucson, Arizona. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 18: 293–298.
4. Grinder M., Krausman P. R. 2001. Home range, habitat use, and nocturnal activity of coyotes in an urban environment. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65: 887–898. Find this article online
5. Hawkins C. C. 1998. Impact of a subsidized exotic predator on native biota: effect of house cats (Felis catus) on California birds and rodents. Dissertation, Texas A&M University. College Station, USA.
6. MacCracken J. G. 1982. Coyote food in a Southern California suburb. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 10: 280–281. Find this article online
7. McClure M., Smith N. S., Shaw W. W. 1995. Diets of coyotes near the boundary of Saguaro National Monument and Tucson, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist. 40: 101–125.
8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. Monthly and daily normals (1971–2000) plus daily extremes (1895–2007) for Tucson, Arizona. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. . Accessed 8 Jan 2008.
9. Patronek G. J. 1998. Free-roaming and feral cats—their impact on wildlife and human beings. Journal of Veterinary Medical Association. 212: 218–226.
10. Quinn T. 1997. Coyote (Canis latrans) food habits in three urban habitat types of western Washington. Northwest Science. 71: 1–5. Find this article online
11. Sellers W. D., Hill R. H. 1974. Arizona climate 1931–1972. Second edition. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, USA.
12. Shargo E. S. 1988. Home range, movement, and activity patterns of coyotes (Canis latrans) in Los Angeles suburbs. Dissertation, University of California. Los Angeles, USA.
13. The Humane Society of the United States. 2003. A safe cat is a happy cat. The Humane Society of the United States. Washington, D.C., USA.
14. The Wildlife Society. 2006. Feral and free-ranging domestic cats. The Wildlife Society home page. . Accessed 20 Sep 2007.
15. Timm R. M., Baker R. O., Bennett J. R., Coolahan C. C. 2004. Coyote attacks: an increasing suburban problem. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 69: 1–10.

We are very happy about this.

We are also pleased to see that federal and state agencies are beginning to incorporate language into solicitations that requires potential suppliers of goods and services to be able to present their capabilities in limiting or reducing impacts to the natural environment during the performance of their work. An example of this requirement in a solicitation follows:

“Greening/Recycling/Waste Prevention Efforts: In accordance with federal efforts to reduce waste, the contractor shall also document all efforts related to recycling and waste reduction. Contractors shall provide products and services that include: alternatives to hazardous waste; bio-based products; non-ozone depleting substances; recycled products; and, environmentally preferable products as defined by the EPA. Preferred products and categories are listed on the EPA’s web-site:”

Many providers of architectural, engineering, and environmental services may read that clause in a solicitation and disregard it immediately as irrelevant to the supply of their particular service. But by including this requirement in solicitations two consecutive things have occurred. First, a potential supplier has given, perhaps for the first time, thought to the possibility of reducing waste. Second, the potential supplier has, we hope, given thought to the possibility of employing waste reduction or other environmentally responsible actions as a competitive differentiator. We sincerely hope so, anyway.

Even construction companies and managers are getting in on the “green” action. Click on the following link to read about a recent construction job in Plano, Texas where the city actually paid more for environmentally friendlier cement: Plano Texas Cement.

And it isn’t just state agencies going green. The EPA keeps on its website case studies of contractors who have made great contributions to eliminating waste and working with more kindness toward our natural environment. Read all of them here: EPA Lean and Green.

Now, no article covering socially and ecologically responsible purchasing would be complete without addressing the emotional aspects of the entire movement. I will address this in much more detail in upcoming articles, but let’s look at one element here, and that is the query, should our government agencies be incorporating requirements for reducing waste or limiting environmental impact at a time when everyone, and we mean everyone from individuals to major corporations to individual government agencies, are experiencing a starvation of resources?

Our position: Absolutely. Our reasoning: Regardless of your position along the political spectrum, the fact is our planet has a limited amount of resources and the world’s population is expanding. Do the math. On balance, the population of our country has shown a strong desire to spend its money on goods and services that are heading in the direction of doing less damage to our natural environment. In a representative democracy the government is us. Our elected leaders spend our money. We want those responsible for executing our laws to use our collective resources in a manner consistent with our collective consciousness, and the requirements appearing in agency solicitations are an extension of our collective will. A loud but weak counterargument is that in these dire economic times we should forgo these requirements, which some may say place a burden on contractors who are already desperate for work to expend resources they don’t have. This argument is entirely without merit for two reasons. First, these requirements apply to all bidders. It can’t reasonably be argued that elimination of environmental harm places an undue burden on one contractor and not another. Should a solicitation include a requirement that cannot be met by any contractor, the whole solicitation would be scrapped and reworded until requirements can be met. By the nature of fair and open solicitations all bidders have the same opportunity to present solutions at their best price. In America, we love fairness, and this is ultimately fair. Second, everyone reading this article was alive in 2006 and hopefully enjoying the great prosperity we experienced as a nation in the first half of this decade. If a supplier had been employing the abundance of resources in those years to eliminate waste and work toward environmental friendliness, they would be in a prime position to use that experience as a competitive differentiator in pursuing government business. They would win because they have done the right thing in the recent past and should be rewarded for that. Also, our government, us, has long used times of crisis to implement socially and environmentally responsible policies. As proponents of these policies, we encourage that sort of behavior.