August 19, 2004

No-trapping ordinance poses coyote danger to residents

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

A dangerous increase in coyote interactions with Almaden residents and their pets has prompted action by community members to circulate a petition that seeks to amend the current no-trapping ordinance in San Jose.

Even though Proposition Four banned the use of leghold traps, it contained a provision that would allow their use in the event that public safety was at risk—a stipulation left out when San Jose adopted its own ordinance in June.

Section 7.10.110 of the San Jose Municipal Code states: “It is unlawful for a person to use any of the following animal traps within the city limits of San Jose: leg-hold steel-jawed traps, steel-jawed traps, leg-hold traps, and saw-toothed or spiked-jaw traps.”

According to retired San Jose State University Professor Pat Pizzo, residents walking their dogs are now being stalked by increasingly aggressive coyotes—sometimes all the way back to their front doors.

And yet, Santa Clara Vector Control Specialist Mike Phillips says his hands are now tied and he remains concerned about the growing problem—one that has coyotes killing pets as far away as the Pioneer High School and Singletree Elementary School areas.

“The code left the public safety part out,” he says. “Now the state is not able to come in and assist the city any longer. You can still box trap, but the chances of ever catching a coyote with those are slim to none and we’ve had no luck.”

“The ordinance does not have that provision,” admits John Cicerelli, director of Animal Control. “However, we’ve told Vector Control that if, as an agency, they’re willing to put in writing that they believe these conditions exist and they can meet the state criteria, I would be able to make a strong argument for their case with the city to allow them to use the traps to alleviate the problem. Right now we’re going through the process of changing it, but we haven’t received anything from them yet.”

Currently, no trapping ordinances in San Jose, Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Moran Hill, and Sunnyvale have outlawed leghold traps without public safety stipulations and threaten to open the door for a more widespread dilemma in the future because the municipal codes supercede the state code.

“You can’t make a state code weaker but you can make it stronger,” Phillips says. “It will eventually create a problem like what is already happening here.”

“We’re revisiting that as we speak,” says Jo Coffaro, with Vice Mayor Pat Dando’s office. “Our goal is to have it go to the rules committee as soon as possible and then it will be adopted by the city council. We’re trying to resolve this as quickly as we can.”

According to a 1998 study by the University of California, California State Polytechnic University-Pamona, and USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, the use of leg-hold traps has proven to be very effective in solving the problem—especially when coyotes lose their fear of humans and start to behave aggressively. The traps were allowed in California, under the provisions of the 1998 anti-trap initiative, but only when a public health or safety emergency existed. To date, that method remains the most effective in re-instilling a fear of humans into the local coyote population, as remaining coyotes will often disperse after two to five animals are trapped in a problem neighborhood—depending on the size of the area, the number of coyote family units dwelling in the area, and the existing level of wariness in the animals.

“In 2002, we were trapping with no problem,” Phillips says. “All I can do now is investigate, document what’s going on, and relay my findings to the local warden and the Department of Fish and Game. It is a public safety issue in my eyes and in the department’s eyes, but because of San Jose’s law, I can’t go in there.”

“You weigh that [ordinance] against the health and safety of the public, and there’s not a big argument there,” says Cicerelli.

“But until they commit to that publicly as an agency in writing, I’m not going to disobey and ordinance and make an exception in this case.”

Taking action
Mounting concerns for public safety have prompted Almaden Villas resident David James to construct and circulate a petition that would once again allow the use of padded leg traps if extenuating circumstances show a real and present danger to residents.

“San Jose city law is not in line with the state law,” explains James. “Box traps are the only ones that are allowed and they are completely ineffective. My neighbor had been stalked all the way back to her own garage when walking her little dog. The next day, I circulated a petition to every one of the 180 homes here. Within four days, I had 70 signed and took them to Pat Dando’s office. Now I have 94—that’s amazing.”

The urgency to amend the ordinance lies in the timing as October and November typically finds young coyotes branching out to find new territory or join other packs in an effort to keep their bloodlines clean. Although an emergency session has been requested to take the petition to the City Council, Phillips says that it could still take six to eight weeks to go into effect—providing coyotes with a head start in dispersing to other areas of the city.

“When you have an animal showing no fear of man, where they continually come into neighborhoods and kill pets, what happens when all the pets disappear?” questions Phillips. “They start going after kids and adults. That’s already happened in Los Angeles.”

“What happens if the unthinkable happens and there’s an attack on a child?” asks James. “The City Council is not going to look very good at that point.”

“If we pass this tomorrow, the county still needs to come back with proof that they’ve met those guidelines,” says Coffaro. “To my knowledge, that still has not happened.”

But Phillips sees a bigger problem if it doesn’t get changed soon. “Even Fish and Game has stated that although people worry more about mountain lions in the area, it’s really the coyotes they need to worry about,” he says.

“In this case, the ordinance is less important than public safety,” assures Cicerelli. “We will alleviate the threat first and worry about the words on the paper later. But until they produce something, saying that the city is in their way is incorrect. They have the state to deal with first.”