View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
	
		NatureServe 
		
Montana 
		Utah 
		Wyoming 
		Idaho 
		Wisconsin 
		British Columbia 
		South Carolina 
		Yukon 
		California 
		New York 
	
	
 
		
		 
     
	
		Coyote - Canis latrans  
		
		
		
		
Native Species Global Rank : 
G5 
			State Rank : 
S5 
			(see State Rank Reason  below) 
			
			
			Agency Status USFWS : 
USFS : 
BLM : 
				
			 
			
				External Links
				
			 
		    
			    Listen to an Audio Sample 
				
					It seems your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio. Here is a  to the audio  instead
				 
			    
			    Copyright by Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, all rights reserved. 
			 
		
		 
	 
	
			
            State Rank Reason  (see State Rank  above) 
            Species is common and widely distributed. It is likely stable and faces no known significant threats.
			
							
			
	 
	
	 
		General Description
		Like a medium-sized dog in appearance. Nose more pointed and tail bushier than most dogs. Larger than the Red Fox and much smaller than Gray Wolf. Tail held down between legs when running. Long, dense fur. Pelt gray or reddish-gray, with rusty legs, feet, and ears. Throat and belly whitish. Measurements from Foresman (2012): Total Length averages 44.5 inches in females and 48 inches in males; Tail Length averages 14 inches in females and 13.7 inches in males; Weight averages 22.0 pounds in females and 28.4 pounds in males.
		
	
		Diagnostic Characteristics
		Gray Wolf - larger, hold tail high when running. Red Fox - smaller, hold tail out straight when running. Domestic Dog/Coyote, Gray Wolf/Coyote, Gray Wolf/Domestic Dog crosses are also possible.
		
	
	Species Range
	
		
			Montana Range 
		Range Descriptions 
			
					
						Native 
					 
				
				
					
			 
			
			
			Western Hemisphere Range 
			 
		
	 
	
		Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
		Number of Observations:  3522
		
		
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) 
		Map Help and Descriptions 
				Relative Density 
				 
		
			
				Recency 
				 
		
		 
		
			
				(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts) 
		 
		
			
		
		
	
		Migration
		Non-migratory.
		
	
		Habitat
		Utilizes almost any habitat, including urban areas, where prey is readily available. Prefers prairies, open woodlands, brushy or boulder-strewn areas. Coyote abundance is tied to food availability. Mainly nocturnal, true scavenger, territorial. Kills large animals by attacking the throat. Adaptable. Occupies diverse habitats.
		
		
	
	Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
    
		
			
				Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
					
						How Associations Were Made 
						We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for 
						vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
						
							Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004); 
							Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements; 
							Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system; 
							Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat". 
						 
						Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use. 
						In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system. 
						However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, 
even if  point observations were associated with that system.   
						Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature. 
						The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association. 
						If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
						
						
						
Suggested Uses and Limitations 
						Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning. 
						These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: 
mtnhp.mt.gov/requests ) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists. 
						Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales. 
						Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade. 
						Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections). 
						Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range. 
						
						
						
Literature Cited 
						
							Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p. 
							Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT. 
							Foresman, K.R.  2012.  Mammals of Montana.  Second edition.  Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana.  429 pp. 
							Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p. 
							Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p. 
							Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p. 
							Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p. 
						 
					 
				 
			 
		 
	
		
			
				 Commonly Associated with these Ecological SystemsAlpine Systems
Forest and Woodland Systems
Grassland Systems
Human Land Use
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Sparse and Barren Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
 
				 Occasionally Associated with these Ecological SystemsRecently Disturbed or Modified
 
			 
		 
		
	
		Food Habits
		Consumes a variety of foods and carrion. Will eat almost anything, plant or animal. Emphasizes small mammals, fawns, plants, birds, and invertebrates. During winter, often preys on adult deer. Commonly preys on domestic sheep. Rodents and rabbits important year-round. Grasshoppers, crickets, fruits may be used in summer and fall. Food habits vary between seasons and areas. Young deer, elk, and pronghorn in spring.
		
	
		Ecology
		In absence of alternative prey, preys on adult deer in winter and fawns in summer. May be severe. Alternative prey population dynamics deserve consideration prior to Coyote control. Coyotes do kill sheep.
		
	
		Reproductive Characteristics
		Mated pairs usually produce pups each year, and both adults assist in care of the young. Den used for rearing pups. Breeds from January to March; 60 to 63 days gestation; four to seven pups in a typical litter. 44% female yearlings produce young. 63% of all females produce young. Productivity related to nutrition. Average 4.6 young per litter. Probably breeds between January and March.
		
	
		Stewardship Responsibility
		
		
	
	References
	
		
			Literature Cited AboveLegend:    
			Additional ReferencesLegend:   Do you know of a citation we're missing?  
			Web Search Engines for Articles on "Coyote"
				
			 
			Additional Sources of Information Related to "Mammals"