Coyotes have come to the city. I sit here writing in the foreshortened suburban night and listen to them howling and singing out back, hidden in what we used to call a gulch but is now called a green belt. A coyote can hold a note a lot longer than you think.
To many, they are a dangerous nuisance. Pet cats and puppies disappear. Coyotes, or “ghosts of the city” as a recent study calls them, get the blame. That study (pdf), by Ohio State’s Stanley Gehrt, says coyotes “have become the top carnivores in an increasing number of urban areas across North America…”
If pets disappear, though, so do skunks and rats. I think it’s a fair trade.
Years ago I sat on a little rise near the Rio Grande with my father and watched a pair of coyotes tag-team a deer, one resting while the other ran the deer in circles. The next, fully rested, took up the game so the partner could rest. It took four cycles. I’ll spare you the end of the story, except to say the coyotes seemed skilled and well-fed.
It’s almost too easy to paint a romantic metaphor here: wild things persist and thrive, despite human gated communities, speed bumps, stop-lights, WalMarts, chin-pulling urban planners and beleaguered city councilmen who themselves get tag-teamed at churches and Christmas parties by suburban couples who’ve lost cocker spaniels and tabbies.
You know why coyotes do so well? Because they are not ideologues.
They take great advantage of an evolved mammalian trait too often derided by humans as lack of conviction or commitment: mental flexibility, a willingness to live with uncertainty and unpredictability so that more alternative courses of action are opened.
Coyotes, we say, are wily. As regards humans, the English poet John Keats called it “negative capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason.”
Every ideologue in human history has failed. That’s because most ideas are contingent and bound up with current or past circumstances and often unsuited to tomorrow’s risks and opportunities. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized this. It’s why Jefferson said we need a revolution every generation. The U.S. Constitution is not an idea, and it’s a terrible mistake to read it like a list of commandments. The Constitution’s greatest feature is the inbuilt recognition of the need for its own mutability.
Jefferson, however, did hold one truth as immutable or “self-evident”: human equality. Does this contradict the fundamental insight of the Enlightenment, the insight that truth is man-made and fallible?
Maybe, but the recognition of human equality was a truth made necessary by the fact that every other idea for ordering or enforcing human inequality by economic prowess, religion, skin color, geographic origin, I.Q., or arm strength was doomed from the start.
The trouble is, of course, that technology has now empowered ideas with the ability to take us all down with them when they go.
A further trouble is, in politics those of “negative capability” often seem to be at a disadvantage in debate with stubborn ideologues. The former are made to seem weak and uncertain, the latter strong and certain, no matter how demonstrably false the ideas they cling to (the free, unregulated market comes with an invisible hand that blesses all; fossil fuels are infinite in supply and safe for the environment; war is peace, et cetera).
But who is really stronger, the coyote or the domesticated dog?
I think Barack Obama is the first president in my lifetime to possess Keat’s negative capability. The trait was made more politically attractive by its juxtaposition with the many failures of George W. Bush’s stubborn clinging to ideas already bled to death during the world’s most violent century.
I fear Obama’s attraction to Abraham Lincoln is already being trivialized by the press, but it’s a fact that Lincoln might have been the last president to possess this quality.
We should be cautious about judging Obama in the light of our own sticky ideas. It’s not that anyone should quit advocating for what they believe. Democracy depends upon it. It’s simply to put into action the recognition that in America’s gulch or green belt, if we want to survive, we’re going to have to eat a skunk or two.
Published first at FireDogLake. A first clue to the origins of DogCanyon and the armchair coyotes.

(I’ll just paste my comment here from The Rag Blog, which posted your excellent post, post haste.)
I enjoyed your post. Though I understand it’s not about coyotes, I want to respond to one thing you said about them. You wrote: “If pets disappear, though, so do skunks and rats. I think it’s a fair trade.” Well, you’re entitled, of course, but that’s a rather callow, glib, and incompassionate thing to say. Like you’re going all Henny Youngman on the loss of someone’s lifetime friend. Just saying. Besides skunks are cool, and you’re obviously not if you don’t like them (see, I have my prejudices too). Your thoughts on negative capability regarding Obama? Well, I think and hope you’re right. It’s one of those time-will-tell things, but I’m on your side about it. It’s a good insight, I believe, and have tried to follow his decisionmaking in that light, though it strains credulity at times. Maybe that’s because I’m more ideologue than not. Regarding Jefferson and the mangled context of his generational revolution quote, isn’t a truer context that he said there must be a revolution every so often because a certain segment of the population is going to remain ignorant of what the government is actually doing, and therefore will rise up in ignorance? And then government will have to resist the rise of ignoramusism? That’s my new understanding anyway. It certainly applies to latter-day teabaggerism. Well, that’s enough showing my own ignorance for now.
- L. Piltz
You have a point about the pets. It was a weak joke, but it was innocent.
I received a private email complaining about the pet part, too. Just thought I’d record it. I do believe there is something inherently funny about wild america invading gated suburbia.
I love animals, wild and domestic. But I think America is a bit pet crazy. If we spent on human health care what we spend on pets, well, it’d be a different place. It’s not that we love our pets. That’s wonderful. It’s that we collectively spend billions and billions on them. That deserves a little good-natured mockery, I think. I’ll try to make the joke funnier next time.
I’ve lost 4 pets to coyotes and one to an owl. It happens. If you have pets you will lose them. I think coyotes are beautiful. Last year, in the 100+ heat of late summer, I saw a coyote lying in the shade, panting, about 10 feet from a couple of bunnies doing the same.
Ignoramusism. Ha.
And I’m a guy that quit hunting in my early 20s, saved a pet dog from drowing just the other day, and spent years adopting durn near every hurt and needy critter within a few miles. But tell a joke about a pet and look out! A political operative told me today there are two groups you can’t mess with: pet owners and bicyclists. God forbid a bicyclist runs over someone’s poodle. I may lead to war.
Oh yeah, I’ve also been known to carry spiders outside rather than squash them, a habit that hasn’t necessarily improved the affections of the human critters near me.
Brilliant Glenn!
I love the analogy of the coyote as compared to humans and our evolution (although I have lost two older cats to the coyotes in our back creek area and mourn their loss, I celebrate the coyotes ability to survive inspite of all the land being eaten up by new homes).
It makes sense to me that outwardly both Lincoln and Obama are lanky and tall. Reminds me again of the coyote being lean and agile. Leaders need that today so that they can easily twist and turn as need be.
Keep writing!