Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference

A common adage is “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” How applicable this saying may be to wildlife conservation and management is debatable; however, understanding the “where,” “who,” and “why” of human-wildlife conflict can help managers evaluate and prioritize incident response and conflict mitigation efforts. It is critical to note that no tracking or reporting system is capable of effectively capturing all human-wildlife incidents. The format and functionality of the tracking system, how the system is advertised to the public, and who manages the system are all important factors in the accessibility, utility, and success of each tracking system. Here, we examine three different systems for tracking reported human-coyote incidents and encounters in California: 1) the Wildlife Incident Reporting system, operated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; 2) Coyote Cacher, operated by the University of California - Agricultural and Natural Resources Cooperative Extension; and 3) iNaturalist, a citizen science initiative, operated by a non-governmental organization. We find that because each system offers different incentives to the public (and poses different potential challenges or barriers to reporting), each receives a significantly different volume of coyote reports. Each system provides a unique perspective of reported human-coyote conflicts in California. Understanding these differences and being cognizant of the inherent or potential limitations of a reporting system are crucial for integrated, scientifically defensible, and robust wildlife management, effective policy development, and informed decision-making.