Link Above. If I have the correct one, this is one of the studies mentioned in the Kris Pope "Coyote Trapping School" podcast, Episode 54:

ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Coyote Movement Patterns with Emphasis on
Home Range Characteristics
by
Stephen J. Hibler, Master of Science
Utah State University, 1977
Major Professor: Dr. Frederick F. Knowlton
Department: Wildlife Science
ix
Standard radio telemetry techniques via triangulation were used to
determine coyote locations and to construct maps of coyote movement
patterns in Curlew Valley (Utah and Idaho). Home range sizes were
determined by establishing corresponding boundaries drawn on the basis
of location, density and relative number of visitations (contour
method), and then tracing the boundaries with a compensating polar
planimeter. Mean home range sizes were determined directly for only
those animals with home range values that reached an asymptote when
plotted against corresponding time periods. This asymptotic value was
considered the best estimate of the actual home range size. Four adult
females and one adult male were in this category, with mean values of
18.3 km2 and 14.5 km2 respectively . The asymptote was estimated for
home ranges which did not stabilize (mean values of 20.2 and 17.8 km
2
for adult females and males respectively) using a home range estimator;
validation of the estimator is discussed. Since no juvenile animal ' s
home range appeared to reach an asymptote, no asymptotic estimates were
made . Various methods of constructing home range boundaries, their
X
advantages and disadvantages, are listed. Standardization in the home
range concept is necessary if meaningful comparisons are to be made
between studies. Home ranges are dynamic, and must be considered in
terms of specific time frames. Guidelines for adequate description of
the home range are discussed with emphasis on quantity of data, time
requirements and recognition of seasonal shifts in the home range. Map
analysis suggested three general patterns with regard to home ranges;
namely, animals with contiguous home range areas, those with disjunct
home ranges, and wandering individuals. Fifty percent of the coyotes
were trapped more than 0.5 km outside home range boundaries while an
additional 42 percent were trapped on the periphery of the home range.
Only 8 percent, all juveniles, were trapped within their home range.
None of the 21 animals killed by hunters or trappers died well within
their respective home ranges. Twenty-nine percent were killed on the
periphery of their home ranges and 71 percent were killed an average of
11 km outside their home range ~n··~rl~Ties. Several movement patterns
other than home range were discernible, including brief excursions away
from the home range (sallies), dispersals, and total area utilized.
Mean dispersal distances for adul t males, juvenile males and females
respectively were 56, 9 and 54 km; no adult female was known to
disperse. Juvenile females had the greatest tendency to disperse with
53 percent involved; juvenile males, 33 percent and adult males, 30
percent. Sallies were analyzed according to distance, duration and
frequency, with adult females having the longest (4.9 km) and the
greatest number of sallies (7.9 per month), and adult males spending
the most time per sally (16.2 hours) as well as time per month (72.9
hours) in sally activity. The total area utilized by coyotes is
xi
discussed in terms of size and measurement. Mean values for total
areas utilized are 138 km2 for adult females, 90 km
2
for adult males,
68 km2 for juvenile males and 46 km
2
for juvenile females. Home range
configuration is discussed in terms of importance and variability in
form, with the majority of shapes being ameboid in character. Linearity
may be a function of the method used to establish home range
boundaries and use of baseline data from fixed radio telemetry
stations.