How Misinformation Fosters Urban Human-Coyote Conflicts

Oleyar, Claude M.

doi:10.5070/v424110685

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In urban and suburban populations, some segment of the citizenry will oppose active coyote management, especially if it includes lethal removal of coyotes. Some animal welfare and animal rights groups gain a large following (and presumably substantial financial support) from inflaming the issue of coyote control (Oleyar 2010). In California, an important tool for selectively removing problem coyotes from suburban environments was lost with passage of "Proposition 4," an initiative measure approved by voters in November 1998 (Animal Legal & Historical Center 2006).…”

Section: Politics Of Managing Urban Coyotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coyote Attacks on Humans, 1970-2015

Rex¹,

Robert²

2016

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning with the developing pattern of urban and suburban coyotes attacking humans in southern California in the late 1970s, we have gathered information on such incidents in an effort to better understand the causes of such changes in coyote behavior, as well as to develop strategies that can reduce the incidence of such attacks. Here, we update information from our knowledge of conflicts between humans and coyotes occurring largely in urban and suburban environments in the United States and Canada during the past 30 years. This problem emerged in states beyond California and in Canadian provinces in the 1990s, and it appears to be growing. We have documented 367 attacks on humans by coyotes from 1977 through 2015, of which 165 occurred in California. Of 348 total victims of coyote attack, 209 (60%) were adults, and 139 (40%) were children (age ≤10 years). Children (especially toddlers) are at greater risk of serious injury. Attacks demonstrate a seasonal pattern, with more occurring during the coyote breeding and pup-rearing season (March through August) than September through February. We reiterate management recommendations that, when enacted, have been demonstrated to effectively reduce risk of coyote attack in urban and suburban environments, and we note limitations of non-injurious hazing programs. We note an apparent growing incidence of coyote attack on pets, an issue that we believe will drive coyote management policy at the local and state levels.

show abstract

Section: Politics Of Managing Urban Coyotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coyote Attacks on Humans, 1970-2015

Rex¹,

Robert²

2016

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In sum, the Connolly and Longhurst model merely indicated that coyote populations can withstand high levels of control and rebound quickly after control is terminated. But this does not mean that removal of problematic coyotes will stimulate reproduction or aggravate problems (Oleyar 2010). Note that the Connolly and Longhurst study assumed no alteration of resources used by coyotes in the environment (food, water, and shelter).…”

Section: The "Catapult Effect" -Coyote Removal Results In More Coyotes -Is Unsubstantiatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To the contrary, the foremost experts in the field of coyote behavior and management have generally dismissed hazing as an untenable solution for the sort of coyote problems plaguing urban areas throughout the country. "The main problem with most fear-provoking stimuli is that animals soon learn that they pose no real threat and then ignore them" (Oleyar 2010). Professor Rex Baker, one of the foremost experts on urban coyotes, has also explained, "Once coyotes have begun acting boldly or aggressively around humans, it is unlikely that any attempts at hazing can be applied with sufficient consistency or intensity to reverse the coyote habituation" (Baker 2007, Timm et al 2004.…”

Section: The "Hazing" Methods Proposed By Animal Rights Special Interest Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Problematic Trend of Pseudo-Science Dictating Urban Coyote Management Policy

Brady¹

2016

vertebrate_pest_conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest groups are lobbying local authorities nationwide to manage the increasingly dangerous problem of nuisance urban-coyotes by adopting a so-called "hazing" regime, whereby the populace is educated to actively engage coyotes with hostile actions, such as yelling and throwing objects at them. While there is some scientific basis for including an organized hazing regime as one component of a comprehensive urban-coyote management plan, these interest groups have been successful in convincing many local authorities that a public hazing regime is, aside from removing attractants, the only acceptable approach for addressing aggressive or habituated coyotes and that any lethal measures are not only inhumane but ineffective, as a matter of science. However, there is no mainstream scientific literature that supports their view. To the contrary, the only scientific literature on the subject casts doubt on the efficacy of hazing, at least as a long-term solution. Nevertheless, many municipalities have accepted these objectively biased groups' representations as scientifically valid with little question and have adopted coyote policies based on such representations, without the usual hyper concern for public safety and liability that municipalities are famous for. This paper puts the urban-coyote management plans pushed by interest groups, like the Humane Society of the United States and Project Coyote, under the microscope to evaluate their scientific pedigree to show how widespread their campaign of misinformation reaches.

show abstract

“…residents celebrate their establishment and others are fearful for their pets and children (Oleyar, 2010;Alexander & Quinn, 2011;Flores, 2016). While coyotes are found in nearly all ecosystems in North America (Mowry & Edge, 2014;Caudill & Caudill, 2015;Hody & Kays, 2018), observations of melanistic coyotes are uncommon.…”

Section: Leucisticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs

Williams,

Kreling,

Stanton

et al. 2024

Hum Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coloration in wildlife serves numerous biological purposes, including sexual selection signaling, thermoregulation, and camouflage. However, the physical appearance of wildlife also influences the ways in which humans interact with them. Wildlife conservation has largely revolved around humans’ propensity to favor charismatic megafauna, but human perceptions of wildlife species extend beyond conservation measures into our everyday interactions with individual wildlife. Our aesthetic appreciation for different species interplays with culture, lore, and the economic interest they carry. As such, one characteristic that may underpin and interact with social drivers of perception is the coloration of a particular individual. We provide case studies illustrating the dynamism in interactions people have with conspicuously colored wildlife – i.e., individuals that vary from their species-typical coloration. We focus on melanism, leucism, and albinism across four species commonly thought of as pests in the United States: coyotes (Canis latrans), eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and black-tailed deer (O. hemionus).

show abstract

How Misinformation Fosters Urban Human-Coyote Conflicts

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Coyote Attacks on Humans, 1970-2015

Coyote Attacks on Humans, 1970-2015

The Problematic Trend of Pseudo-Science Dictating Urban Coyote Management Policy

Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About