Email — 90 seconds

Find your Councillor and make sure they know what you think. Use the City of Toronto's tool here.

Subject: Six months is too long

Councillor [NAME],

I live at [ADDRESS], Ward [WARD].

In Liberty Village it took six months, more than fifty reported attacks, and two dead dogs before the City removed two coyotes. There's no rule that says it should have taken less time, because the City has never published one.

[YOUR STORY — two sentences, specific, factual]

One question: do you support publishing a numeric threshold — attacks per window — that triggers removal of an identified coyote?

[NAME], Ward [WARD]

Forward their reply and cc [email protected]

Email the Minister

Send this to [email protected] and bcc [email protected]

Dear Minister Mike Harris Junior,

I am writing to ask the Ministry to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 and its regulations so that municipalities in southern Ontario can lethally remove coyotes that threaten public safety.

The current framework was built for rural property damage, not urban safety. Section 31 permits a person to kill wildlife only on their own land, and only where they believe on reasonable grounds that the animal is damaging or about to damage their property. A coyote that follows a child through a public park, or takes a leashed dog off a sidewalk, does not meet that test. Municipal agents require case-by-case ministerial authorization, and those authorizations are short, geographically confined, and limited to specific identified animals. The result is that by the time a removal is approved, the incident that prompted it is weeks old.

We are asking for five changes:

1. Public-safety trigger. Amend section 31 so that confirmed threatening behaviour toward a person — stalking, approaching, or biting — or the killing of a leashed pet is independent grounds for removal, without requiring proof of property damage.

**2. Municipal and public land. Allow municipalities to authorize removal on any land they own or control, including parks, ravines, trail corridors and school grounds.

3. Standing agents. Prescribe municipal animal services officers and licensed wildlife control operators as a class of agents under section 31(2), so that removal does not depend on individual ministerial authorization.

4. Urban methods. Provide express provincial authority for designated agents to use approved lethal methods in municipalities that prohibit firearm discharge, under controlled conditions and with defined training requirements.

5. Municipal removal programs. Amend section 11 to permit municipally funded, time-limited removal programs. The prohibition on financial incentives has stood since 1972 and now prevents councils from resourcing removal even where they have identified a public-safety problem.

We would also ask the Ministry to require quarterly public reporting of coyote conflict incidents by municipality, so that decisions are made against a common evidentiary record rather than competing anecdotes.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or with staff in the Species Conservation Policy Branch to discuss these proposals.

Sincerely,

[Name] [Address]

Phone

"Hi, [NAME], constituent at [ADDRESS].

One question and I'll let you go. Does the Councillor support publishing a numeric threshold that triggers coyote removal — yes or no?

[They'll offer a paragraph. Say:] I understand, but I'm recording yes, no, or declined. Which is it?

Thanks. Your name for my notes?"

Call Tuesday–Thursday, 10am–noon. Log every call and email us at [email protected] to let us know what they tell you!