The first thing I thought reading about that UW study on Seattle coyotes wasn't about the animals at all. It was about how we talk about "wild" versus "built" spaces, and whether we're asking the right questions. The study found coyote density is nine times higher in Seattle than in Washington's natural areas, and the reason seems to be that cities offer fewer predators and more easy meals. That's a solid, specific finding. But the part that sticks with me is what it says about our assumptions: we tend to think of nature as the thing you drive to, and the city as the place you escape from. This flips that script.
It's the same kind of reframing we've seen closer to home lately. When WSU Can Learn From Cornell: Rebuilding Trust Through Purpose ran, the point wasn't that Cornell had it all figured out. It was that a university's value isn't in its location or its branding, but in how it shows up for the people it serves. And when Washington Passes on Trump-Era Voter Database, Citing Concerns, the takeaway wasn't just about policy. It was about a state choosing its own definition of integrity over a shortcut. Coyotes in Seattle are doing the same thing. They're not lost animals wandering into the wrong place. They're adapting to a habitat that, for them, works.
This is a good reminder that "natural" isn't a purity test. For students at WSU, Pullman sits right next to some genuinely wild country. We know what it looks like to have the Palouse as a backyard. But that doesn't mean the strip malls and apartment complexes are any less real as an ecosystem. The coyotes aren't waiting for permission to belong. They're just figuring out the rules of the neighborhood and thriving anyway. That's not a threat, it's a signal that life finds a way to make do with what's available.
If a friend asked me what to do with this study, I'd say don't treat it as a wildlife story. Treat it as a lesson in resourcefulness. The same way a coyote learns that a greenbelt behind a Target has food and fewer wolves, we learn which study spots actually have good light and which clubs actually follow through. It's practical. It's a little scrappy. And it's the kind of thing that makes you look at a busy street corner a little differently.
The concrete thing to watch isn't the coyote count. It's what happens next. If cities start seeing themselves as part of the ecosystem instead of separate from it, the decisions change. That could mean different approaches to green space, to trash management, to how we build housing near ravine edges. It's the difference between assuming the coyote is the problem and asking what we're offering it. That's a question worth bringing back to campus, too. What are we building that makes people want to stay, adapt, and pitch in? Because that's the real measure of a community, whether it's on the range or right off the freeway.
