Tree planting in Sydney Marcus Park

Trees Atlanta, Boy Scouts of America, and Morningside Lenox Park with close involvement of neighborhood residents Pierce Pape (Pack 17) and Stephanie Coffin, sponsored and delivered a neighborhood tree-planting event this past weekend which includes trees planted on Cumberland and trees mulched in Sydney Marcus Park, along with plantings along Amsterdam and Adair in Virginia Highland. In all, more than a hundred trees were planted and mulched.

It was great weather and great participation from everyone in the neighborhood.

Below are some pictures of the event at Sydney Marcus.

South Fork Conservancy change of leadership

Just confirming some news that had been rumored for a while. Sally Sears has left her position as Executive Director of South Fork Conservancy, though she remains on the board. Her position is filled by Barry Martin. He was most recently Georgia State Director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The MLPA Parks will be seeking to meet with him in the next month or so to see if we can get a reset with South Fork Conservancy. It would be ideal if we can get them to move away from an adversarial position against the neighborhood and get them focused on the conservation activities we endorse. We'll see.

USGS Topographical maps of our neighborhood

The US Geological Service, (USGS) has been making maps of our country for more than a century. They are just about done digitizing their entire collection of maps, historical and contemporary and they are available for free at USGS Map Locator & Downloader. I thought you might be interested as topographical features play such a key role in conservation and planning.

Here is the map for our immediate area. If you download the 2014 map for the area, you get all the topographical markings as well.

An interesting development

A little history.

In 2012, Park Pride, at the behest of South Fork Conservancy, conducted a Visioning workshop over four months in Morningside Lenox Park. South Fork Conservancy is, despite their name, a public infrastructure development group. They are neither a conservation group nor are they a water resources group. Park Pride initiated the meetings and described their role as that of an independent outsider with no stake in the outcome. It was later learned that they in fact had already endorsed South Fork's plan to construct trails through the neighborhood.

South Fork Conservancy initially made the commitment that they would not proceed without consensus in the neighborhood that supported the idea of trails through the nature preserves and adjacent to private property. The South Fork Conservancy position began to shift as it became clear that not only would there not be a consensus but that there was overwhelming opposition to the plan to construct trails. The opposition was rooted in well researched concerns about environmental degradation, ecological destruction, reduction in quality of life and crime/security. Research which South Fork was unwilling to address.

Bob Kerr, the chairman of the board of South Fork Conservancy, presented the final SFC position as "We are going to build these trails no matter what the neighborhood wants."

All of this history is well documented.

In response to this development threat to the neighborhood, members of Protect Morningside Greenspaces approached numerous government officials in an attempt to 1) make neighborhood views known, 2) seek support for an official, public and transparent decision-making process, and 3) seek support for a fact-based decision-making process. Among those with whom we met was Jeff Rader, District Two Commissioner and Kathie Gannon, District Six. The response from all those with whom we met to these three seemingly reasonable requests was circumspect, evasive and noncommittal. It seemed as if there were deeper waters. We documented that some of the corporate financial supporters of South Fork Conservancy were also donors to various local political campaigns and that these corporations also had major contracts with the City of Atlanta and the County of DeKalb. However, there is a limit to what citizens who work full time can do and our research went no further than that.

Now to the present. As you are probably aware, there have been continuing issues of corruption in DeKalb County government in recent years, culminating in the appointment of a Special Investigator by Interim CEO Lee May. An initial report is now in, finding that

Appalling corruption and a stunning absence of leadership in the DeKalb County government are a disgrace to its citizens and an embarrassment to our state. A pattern of corrosive and widespread misconduct has destroyed public confidence in the integrity of the governing authority.

One of the areas highlighted is illegal gratuities, the payment of gratuities from public funds by County officials for purposes not in the "sphere of the official’s legally delegated powers." Specifically,

There is no authority for a member of the BOC, or a county employee, to make charitable contributions using government funds.

There are five such payments of interest to us, four by Jeff Rader and one by Kathie Gannon.

In 2012, when Park Pride was conducting its Visioning sessions in a fashion non-compliant with its own policies and methodology, Jeff Rader made two payments of $10,000 each to Park Pride, totalling $20,000. He made a second donation of $200 in 2013 and made a donation of $100 to South Fork Conservancy in 2014. In total, Jeff Rader's office made $20,300 in contributions to two external advocacy groups who he knew at the time were acting against the wishes of his constituents.

The fifth payment was made by Kathie Gannon, with whom we also had met. Gannon was also the recipient of corporate donations to her campaign from the same companies who were funding South Fork Conservancy. Gannon's office made a donation of $6,000 to Park Pride in 2013.

The Report of the DeKalb Special Investigator can be found here.

Jeff Rader's response is here

It is interesting the divergence of views between the two documents. For Bowers, this is a straightforward legal issue. County executives are not allowed to make non-commercial payments to third parties, unless it is directly within the scope of their responsibilities. For Rader, it is not about the law so much as whether the payments were beneficial to some goal of the county. Rader does go on and

agree that we need better controls to differentiate between permissible and impermissible use of public funds; rules that if in place, would prevent the abuse that now overshadows DeKalb’s government.

With the dismissal of the Special Investigator by May, Rader indicates that "The Governor has announced a review by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation."

So the saga of DeKalb County misgovernance continues. I thought you would be interested to know that there were additional monetary flows occurring between Park Pride, South Fork Conservancy and the County of DeKalb of which we were unaware and which add to the miasma hanging over the county and its over-responsiveness to advocacy money and its lack of responsiveness to actual residents.

Video of trees initiatives in Atlanta

A presentation from Dr. Rosemary Cox, 11/12/2013, Lorax Lesson: Preserving Atlanta's Urban Tree Canopy.

Some interesting information. Covers The Lorax, tree plantings, invasives, native plants, Atlanta initiatives, etc.

Forecasting accuracy!

As you may recall, in the Park Pride Visioning sessions in 2012 to discuss the impact of connected trails through Morningside Lenox Park, neighbors identified several sources of potential negative consequences. Research was prepared around all of those issues and brought to the Visioning Sessions for discussion. The principle areas of predicted negative impact were Ecosystems, Environment, Quality of Life, and Safety.

With regard to safety, the research we found indicated that increased trails were associated with increased crime and that a primary mechanism for this increase was via permeability. Permeability has to do with the degree to which a neighborhood is easily accessible to non-residents as well as the volume of non-residents circulating in the neighborhood in any given time period. The higher the volume of non-neighbor circulation in the neighborhood and the greater the number of points of ingress and egress to a neighborhood, the higher the associated crime rates. More trails means more permeability.

Based on that research we forecast that any established residential areas opened up via new trails would experience an increase in crime. We made this forecast in the Park Pride sessions and in presentations to the City, to DeKalb County and to the MLPA.

South Fork Conservancy rejected all research predicting negative impacts on ecosystems, environment, quality of life, and crime (safety?), indicating that they would proceed with building connected trails regardless of neighborhood concerns and research evidence.

The one geographical location where South Fork did not receive strong pushback was at the confluence area around the western end of Lindridge Martin Manor where it abuts I-85. Using mitigation funding from the Department of Transportation, South Fork Conservancy built two trails in the confluence area, adjacent to the Lindridge Martin Manor neighborhood.

It now appears that there has been a sharp spike in rates of crime in Lindridge Martin Manor subsequent to the opening of the new trails, a spike that exceeds the crime levels in surrounding neighborhoods. This issue is now in front of APD’s Zone 2 to try and figure out how to address. There are no ready and apparent solutions.

It is regrettable that neighbors in Lindridge Martin Manor are bearing these difficult consequences. We advocated many times to Park Pride, to South Fork Conservancy, to the City Department of Parks, and to DeKalb County that all decisions around trails ought to be guided, not by good intentions and persuasive advocacy, but by evidence-based decision-making. It was such an approach that led us to forecast that there would be an increase in crime wherever the trails might be built. The subsequent crime increase at Lindridge Martin Manor validates our evidence-based approach. Our research and forecasts were accurate. We must continue to bring these facts to the attention of decision-makers to ensure that other neighborhoods do not bear similar consequences as a result of connected trails.

Question about any ecological or environmental benefits to heirloom plants

We have native plants and invasives. Native plants almost always have a superior beneficial impact on the local environment and ecosystem in terms of food for urban wildlife, diversity of life, reduced water consumption and water runoff, etc. Separate from the native versus invasives distinction, I wonder whether there is any observable urban wildlife benefit between contemporary pants versus heirloom plants. I have heard of heirloom apples, potatoes, tomatoes, and roses and I am sure there are many other forms. In fact, I saw heirloom tomatoes in the local grocery store just the other day. In my brief reading on heirloom plants, while there is acknowledgement of the benefits arising from their fitness for local circumstances based on their evolutionary history, I am not seeing any discussion about whether there is a environmental or ecological benefit. I assume that heirloom plants may put less stress on the environment by being more resilient in the face of weather variation and may require less water but I wonder if that is correct. Anybody know?

It takes a forest: How intown development puts Atlanta’s tree canopy at risk

It takes a forest: How intown development puts Atlanta’s tree canopy at risk by Layla Bellows.

Within the 133 square miles that constitute the city proper, this is no trick of the eye. The tree canopy covers almost half of the city—47.9 percent to be precise—according to an assessment released in 2014 by the Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission and Georgia Tech. Using satellite imagery to determine coverage down to the neighborhood level, the researchers confirmed that Atlanta has the country’s densest urban tree canopy. Without an oceanfront or mountain chain or broad river flowing through downtown, Atlanta’s most distinctive natural feature is its trees. Despite stringent ordinances aimed at protecting those trees, our canopy faces a paradoxical new threat: renewed interest in urban living. Population growth within the city and a surge in denser development may represent eco-friendly shifts from Atlanta’s car-centric sprawl, but those trends are paired with infill development that puts trees—especially older, taller “overstory” trees that form the canopy—at risk and reduces space to plant replacements. - See more at: http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/it-takes-a-forest-how-intown-development-puts-atlantas-tree-canopy-at-risk/#sthash.4Zmps3dS.PAjaRDGi.dpuf

Read the whole thing.

Morningside trail development funding removed from City budget

A couple of months ago, we became aware that there were two requests for funding included in the City budgeting process, both related to trail development (through public and private properties) in northern Morningside. One request was for a million dollars and the other was an open-ended request. These apparently were long standing requests for funding. Given the overwhelming public opposition in Morningside Lenox Park to these proposed trails, expressed in Park Pride's Visioning process in 2012, we were surprised and alarmed.

We immediately went through the MLPA to get those funding requests removed from the City budgeting process. But having been unaware that those requests had been out there for some years, we were concerned that perhaps other funding requests might be lurking in the darker corners of the budgeting process, and in particular, concerned that requests might have been included in the finalized list of projects to be covered by the recently passed public infrastructure maintenance bond.

We now have confirmation from our City Councilman, Alex Wan, that there are no funds anywhere in the City budget for development of trails in Morningside Lenox Park. He also advised that he is aware of the community opposition and that the issue remains on his radar screen.

Deer in our midst

No this is not from out in the countryside. This is City of Atlanta, Morningside Lenox Park. The primary deer herd in our neighborhood resides in Zonolite but they migrate up and downstream for food and can be seen in backyards along the riparian corridors , in Johnson-Taylor Nature Preserve and in Morningside Nature Preserve. A trail construction group have been active in Zonolite this spring and the disruption appears to have unsettled the herd. Sadly, two stags were struck and killed on our neighborhood roads in the timeframe when path work was being done.

We continue working to contain the public infrastructure development which threatens our remaining greenspaces and urban wildlife and are making some progress. It is hard to estimate the size of the herd but based on various reports from around the neighborhood, I am guessing there are at least a half dozen deer in our midst and possibly more.

This picture was taken by a neighbor from their back porch, Spring 2015.

Click to enlarge

Urban wildlife means . . .

Perhaps we need to update our street signage.

Sally, out for her morning walk with Daisy, approached Johnson Road from Beech Valley. Out of the corner of her eye she saw an animal cavorting in a neighbor's yard. As she turned to observe more closely, it walked out of the yard and casually crossed the street. Not a cat, dog, fox or coyote. She turned to a fellow pedestrian, also watching. "Was that an otter?" A slow nod of the head accompanied by a look of disbelief.

The challenge is to find a nuanced balance between enjoying nature and protecting it

From this past February in the New York Times, Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again by Christopher Solomon.

Solomon hits many of the issues that underpins the MLPA Urban Wildlife initiative and its Park Portfolio Approach.

When we think of injuring nature, it is easy to point an accusing finger at mining companies and their strip mines or timber barons and their clear-cuts. But could something as mellow as backcountry skiing or a Thoreauvian walk in the woods cause harm, too?

More and more studies over the last 15 years have found that when we visit the great outdoors, we have much more of an effect than we realize. Even seemingly low-impact activities like hiking, cross-country skiing and bird-watching often affect wildlife, from bighorn sheep to wolves, birds, amphibians and tiny invertebrates, and in subtle ways.

Impacts from outdoor recreation and tourism are the fourth-leading reason that species are listed by the federal government as threatened or endangered, behind threats from nonnative species, urban growth and agriculture.

[snip]

You’d be surprised by the ripples left by a day-hiker’s ramble through the woods. In 2008 Sarah Reed, an associate conservation scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, and her colleagues found fivefold declines in detections of bobcats, coyotes and other midsize carnivores in protected areas in California that allowed quiet recreation activities like hiking, compared with protected areas that prohibited those activities.

“That is the kind of difference that you don’t see often in ecological studies,” Dr. Reed said. Dogs, a frequent villain, weren’t the issue for these carnivores; people were, according to her research.

Birds get ruffled, too. Researchers who studied trails around Boulder, Colo., found that populations of several species of songbirds, including pygmy nuthatches and Western meadowlarks, were lowest near trails. “There’s something about the presence of humans and their pets when they go on hikes that causes a bit of a ‘death zone’ of 100 meters on either side of a trail,” said Prof. Rick Knight of Colorado State University. Running, canoeing, cycling and similar activities negatively affected birds in nearly 90 percent of 69 studies that researchers reviewed in 2011. Reductions were seen in the number of nests built, eggs laid and chicks hatched or fledged.

In Connecticut, wood turtles, labeled a “species of special concern” in the state, vanished from one wildlife preserve over 10 years after the area was opened to activities like hiking, researchers found.

[snip]

The uncomfortable fact is, we’re all complicit. In a not-yet-published review of 218 studies about recreation’s impacts on wildlife, researchers found more evidence of impacts by hikers, backcountry skiers and their like than by the gas-powered contingent.

[snip]

A century ago, nature had elbow room. Now, there’s a lot less of it, while recreational activities and nature tourism are growing in most parks, wilderness areas and other protected areas around the world.

[snip]

Conflicts with nature are a result. Still, scientists insist they don’t want to lock people out of nature. Spending time on a mountainside, or hip-deep in a trout stream, is tonic for brain and body. Research bears this out. And people who recreate outdoors are among nature’s most ardent constituents. Without them, “our landscapes would erode even faster than they are now,” said Dr. Heinemeyer, the wolverine researcher.

The challenge is to find a nuanced balance between enjoying nature and protecting it, recognizing that recreation does not necessarily complement conservation or preservation.

[snip]

And in the case of future parks and protected areas, we need to carefully consider the goals for such places and how recreation fits in or doesn’t, because once it is allowed, it is tough to restrict. “Whether or not to allow public access is probably the most important decision that gets made,” Dr. Reed said.

Of course not all wildlife is the same. Some species flee; others habituate. Some populations might be healthy enough to withstand disturbance; others, too fragile. We now know recreation is having impacts in ways that we hadn’t imagined. We must plan accordingly.

National groups focusing on Urban Wildlife

Dr. Marzluff kindly responded to my email with several sources of information. Two are national organizations which might be of assistance. They are:

The Urban Wildlife Working Group

and

Biophilic Cities

I haven't yet looked through them but they appear to have a lot of information likely to be pertinent to our efforts. I highlight items as I come across them. If anybody beats me to it, please make a comment.

Thanks

Birdland

A stimulating article from John M. Marzluff, professor of wildlife science at the University of Washington, and a renowned ornithologist and urban ecologist, Birdland. It is worth reading in its entirety but here are some key points.

In London, where the comings and goings of avoiders, adapters and exploiters have been tallied for more than a century, bird diversity has steadily climbed as the city has diversified its land base and improved its health with greener parks, bluer water and cleaner air. In 1900, 25 kinds of bird were known to inhabit the 40 square kilometres of open land that lay within the 25-mile radius managed by the City of London Corporation. In 1975, there were 40 species in this area, including 20 of those present in 1900. In 2012, 60 species called it home. The heterogeneous mix of lands in and around cities begets diversity, as different, albeit tolerant, birds capitalise on the variety of foods and nesting locations that are found close together. Reptiles and amphibians have fared less well – natterjack toads, for example, became extinct in London the 1960s, and poisonous adders and common toads continue to decline.

[snip]

My enthusiasm for wilderness remains intact, but it’s become part of a broader conservation ethic that places equal value on nearby nature. Wondering and learning from our urban ecosystem teaches us to value nature in its broadest sense. In our cities and backyards, we experience how natural processes pay economic, spiritual and biological dividends. Noticing the responses of animals and plants to our actions provides a glimpse into the creative power of natural selection. As our appreciation for nature and the ecological and evolutionary processes that shape it grows from direct experience, our gardens work symbiotically with wilderness to inform our land ethic and conserve the full range of life.

He has a list of actions conducive to fostering diverse bird wildlife in an urban environment.

1. Do not covet your neighbour’s lawn. Devoting less space to mowed and cultivated lawn and more space to diverse plantings encourages bird diversity. Turf, meanwhile, is an ecological disaster that demands our time and energy, requires fertilisers and herbicides, and causes us to waste more petrol than you might imagine.

2. Keep your cat indoors. Free-ranging cats kill one in 10 wild birds, and billions of small mammals. Indoor cats also live longer and less stressful lives than those roaming our neighbourhoods.

3. Make your windows more visible to birds. After death by cat, collision is the leading cause of preventable death among urban birds. Stickers that reflect ultraviolet light (which birds can see) offer homeowners an unobtrusive way to reduce collisions.

4. Do not light the night sky. Birds, especially those that migrate at night, are attracted to the light of buildings. Many die colliding with towers, wires, windows and walls. Turning off lights saves money, power and bird lives.

5. Provide food and nest boxes. By doing so, you can bolster overwinter survival and reproduction, and discover a world of diversity just beyond your windows.

6. Do not kill native predators. Native predators cull the weak and overabundant, and reduce non-native predators that are more dangerous to birds. Celebrate their actions as a sign of a healthy ecosystem.

7. Foster diversity of habitats within cities and the natural distinction among cities. When we resist homogenisation, by respecting regional differences and cultivating distinct neighbourhoods within cities, we support bird diversity. Rather than supporting the same few exploiters, unique cities foster distinctive assemblages of native adapters.

8. Create safe passage across roads and highways. A resilient ecosystem needs more than birds. Wildlife tunnels and bridges can make crossing roads less deadly for those that must crawl. Leaving spaces near highways unmowed can save eggs and nestlings.

9. Ensure functional connections between land and water. Many birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects require access to both land and water. Diverse native vegetation around waterways also provides a natural filter than helps keep our water safe.

10. Enjoy and bond with nature where you live and work. Nurturing wildlife within human environments develops environmental ethics. We become better stewards of the planet when the natural world is a valued part of everyday life.

I have contacted Dr. Marzluff to see if there is any additional research available of if there are any national organizations pursuing this view of urban wildlife.

Urban Wildife and Parks Portfolio Approach

The Morningside Lenox Park Association Parks Committee is in the process of developing an overall plan with two components.

The first component entails a focus on urban wildlife. Given our relatively fixed greenspaces AND all the land represented by residential gardens, what are the things that residents can do to create a more supportive environment for urban wildlife. This can range from garden architecting (trees, bushes, plants), to plant selection, to decisions about manmade habitats such as birdhouses and watering ponds, etc. We are especially interested in integrating what people do in their gardens with what we do with the public greenspaces as well so that the activities are mutually reinforcing.

The second component entails a focus on the portfolio of greenspaces. There is a strong focus at the City planning level to increase access to greenspaces. Given the impact people have on the environment, MLPA Parks Committee is looking at a more balanced approach, referred to as a Parks Portfolio Approach. We are looking at our greenspaces as a portfolio of uses including: 1) Preserves that are relatively untouched by people and therefore representing more of a shelter for urban wildlife, 2) Light Recreational Parks, principally those with trails used for walking and biking, and 3) Heavy Recreational Parks such as those with playgrounds, recreational facilities such as tennis courts, picnic tables, etc. We believe that it makes sense to look at all these uses as a portfolio. You don’t want all of one and none of the others, there needs to be some mix and balance.

We are seeking to balance multiple goals with this overall plan: an environment that enhances urban wildlife, greenspace conservation, neighborhood recreational facilities, sensitivity to the fragility of urban environments and ecosystems, neighborhood engagement with greenspaces (such as trails), neighborhood security, quality of life issues, privacy, traffic impacts, etc. With 7,000 residents, there are many agendas and we are trying to make sure there is something for everyone.

NWF Resources for Urban Wildlife

Three NWF sites with information that might be useful.

Garden for Wildlife including Certified Wildlife Habitats

Creating Bird-Friendly Urban Landscapes: By helping birds, residents of cities and suburbs can contribute to conserving biodiversity by Laura Tangley

NWF Honors America’s Top 10 Cities for Wildlife: "America’s most wildlife-friendly cities are located in every corner of our nation." by Miles Grant – Atlanta is #3.

Atlanta is #3 Wildlife-Friendly City in U.S.

Back on April 2, there was an interview by Celeste Headlee with the head of the National Wildlife Federation's Education and Advocacy Program, Na'taki Osborne Jelks about Atlanta being ranked #3 in the country as a wildlife friendly city.

Here is the interview for your listening pleasure: Atlanta is #3 Wildlife-Friendly City in U.S.

I have contacted Ms. Jelks to see what information the NWF might be able to share with the MLPA Parks Committee as it crafts an urban wildlife centered Park Portfolio approach.

Urban wildlife, songbirds, ecology and economics

From How much is that birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental economic valuation of native urban songbirds by Barbara Clucas, Sergey Rabotyagov, and John M. Marzluff.

From the Abstract:

Human-wildlife interactions in urban areas, both positive and negative, often involve people and birds. We assess the economic value placed on interactions with common native songbirds in two different urban areas (Berlin, Germany and Seattle, Washington, USA) by combining a revealed preference (recalled expenditures on bird feed) and a stated preference approach (determining willingness to pay for conservation or reduction of birds). Residents in both cities purchase bird food, engage in a range of bird-supporting activities and are generally willing to pay a small amount for native songbird conservation. Demographic, cultural and socio-economic factors, as well as specific attitudes towards birds and general attitudes about conservation were found to influence these decisions. This study presents the first attempt at estimating the economic value of enjoying common native urban songbirds and estimates the lower bound to be about 120 million USD/year in Seattle and 70 million USD/year in Berlin.

Another item from within the paper.

On the whole, our results suggest that a sizeable economic value is derived by urban populations from the presence of common, native, “backyard” songbirds. Furthermore, these birds can provide several indirect ecological services for humans such as seed dispersal (e.g., Hougner et al. 2006) and reducing insect pests (e.g., Heyman and Gunnarsson 2011), which if the value were to be estimated, would increase our estimates.

As we think about Morningside Lenox Park as a community encompassing a range of parks and preserves as well as hundreds of acres of gardens, it is worthwhile keeping a broad perspective. Song birds aren't just pretty. They are also part of an economic chain (birdseed purchases) a lifecycle (seed dispersal) and part of the ecological environment ( insect control).

She felt bad because she saw the coyote all by itself

From Coyotes Create Dangers and Divisions in New York Suburbs by Lisa W. Foderaro.

“Ten years ago, it was rare to see coyotes, but they have really exploded on the scene here,” said Capt. Richard Conkin of the Stamford Police Department. He said that starting in March, the animals seemed to become more aggressive. One resident had to fight a “small, scrappy coyote” off with a snow shovel. Another watched as the same coyote chased her shepherd mix to her front door, which she slammed on the animal seconds after her dog made it safely into the house.

Particularly vulnerable are dogs and cats whose owners have installed invisible electric fences, designed to keep the animals from wandering. They trap the pets in while allowing predators unfettered access to the yard.

[snip]

Coyotes, which as long as 75 years ago moved into the eastern United States from the West, are viewed by naturalists as a beneficial part of the ecosystem, because they keep rodents in check. They have been sighted in all 21 counties of New Jersey and every town in Connecticut.

They are now so well established — New York State has an estimated 14,500 breeding pairs — that any effort to reduce the population would be fruitless, officials say.

“They are an intelligent animal and quickly learn how to survive in their environment, whether that’s the Bronx or Clinton County,” said Gordon R. Batcheller, the chief wildlife biologist for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “They are a permanent presence in New York.”

Throughout the region, animal control officers and private trappers work with homeowners and state wildlife officials to capture and euthanize problem or nuisance coyotes. That includes a coyote seen lurking around an elementary school, for example, or one that has preyed on pets in a particular neighborhood.

State officials generally do not allow such coyotes to be relocated because that would merely transfer the problem to another area.

Mostly, the message from wildlife officials is that residents in coyote country need to adapt. “Just like you keep an eye on your kid in the backyard, you keep an eye on your dog,” said Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “It’s not modifying your lifestyle; it’s just common sense.”

Tips for peaceful coexistence with coyotes include keeping dogs on leashes, feeding pets only indoors, hazing coyotes (shouting, waving one’s harms) to prevent their comfort with humans and reporting any bold or aggressive behavior.

Regrettably, common sense is not always in plentiful supply.

And coyotes themselves are not always the root of the problem. Two years ago, Mr. Horton offered his services pro bono when one was loitering outside his children’s elementary school in Hawthorne, N.Y. It turned out a neighborhood woman was feeding it.

“We found pork chops on the snow,” he recalled. “This lady lived right across from the school field, and she was feeding the coyote. Her response was that she felt bad because she saw the coyote all by itself.”

Welcome to the relaunch of the Protect Morningside Greenspaces Site

The original PMG website was established in 2012 to capture information generated from the Park Pride Visioning Process regarding South Fork Conservancy's proposal to build recreational connected trails through Morningside Lenox Park. There was overwhelming opposition from the members of the Morningside Lenox Park neighborhood. Much research was conducted and collected which addressed a variety of claims advanced by South Fork Conservancy and it was felt important to make that information available to the wider community.

Once the Park Pride Visioning Process was completed, the site fell into abeyance and was shut down in early 2015, though with the content archived for later use.

Just three months after the site was closed down, new requests started emerging from members of the Morningside Lenox Park community, in part based on renewed efforts by South Fork Conservancy to push the connected trails through the existing nature preserves, despite a commitment on their part in 2012 to the Morningside Lenox Park Association (MLPA) not to do so.

Based on this renewed activity, the Protect Morningside Greenspaces (PMG) is being resurrected and new content will be added in the coming months.

Much has occurred in the past three years. One of the most important has been the continuing and expanded leadership on the part of the Morningside Lenox Park Association Parks Committee to craft a clear plan for the neighborhood which bridges the conservation concerns of the neighborhood with other important goals such as safety and security, quality-of-life, traffic concerns, etc. as well as City of Atlanta objectives to drive more traffic through the existing greenspaces. This emerging plan, The Parks Portfolio Plan, incorporates an urban wildlife focus and provides guidance for a general approach that optimizes all the important goals as well as provides a methodology for making effective, evidenced-based decisions related to our scarce urban greenspaces. More to follow.