The Conflict of Urban Human and Coyote: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Alfred Zheng and Version 1 by Cameron Thomas Whitley.

Coyotes live in most major cities across North and Central America. As their habitat shrinks, human–coyote interactions increase, spurring debate about how to respond. Residents often fear coyotes and want extermination, but scientists argue they are a permanent fixture that play a vital ecosystem role and that eradicating them does not work and has negative impacts. Instead, ecologists argue that residents need to change their behavior to coexist with coyotes. Human–coyote sightings and interactions are becoming more frequent in urban areas across North and Central America. While many species have lost territory, the coyote range has expanded. Relatively recently, ecologists have coalesced around the idea that coexistence is the most promising avenue to reduce human–coyote conflict in urban areas. Despite this, calls for the eradication of coyotes continue. 

  • urban coyotes
  • human
  • theory of friendliness
  • human-animal studies

1. Introduction

In 2022, Nahant, a small Massachusetts town, became the first in the state to hire the federal government to eradicate its local coyote pack after it was reported that the pack of eight to ten coyotes was not friendly but a dangerous nuisance that had killed pets [1]. Animal advocates, such as the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, vocalized their disdain for the idea, arguing that simply killing the pack would not deter future inhabitation and that the city needed to consider a comprehensive plan for addressing human–coyote conflict [1]. Considering the impacts of urban coyotes have become an issue for many major metropolitan areas across the US, Canada, Mexico, and Central America, as human–wildlife conflicts become more frequent [2].
Although there is no comprehensive database tracking coyote interactions with humans or pets, anecdotal evidence of rising human–coyote interactions abound, which has prompted the development of a variety of municipal, university, and nonprofit efforts to assess the issue. For example, in 2000, Cook County, IL, developed the Urban Coyote Research Project to better understand coyote ecology in the Chicago metro area [3], and in Puget Sound, Seattle University and the Woodland Park Zoo have partnered to develop the Seattle Urban Carnivore Project [4]. Documenting over 1100 human–coyote interactions in Seattle over the last year alone, efforts like the Carnivore Counter, a website where Seattleites can report sightings and interactions, demonstrate the reality that human–coyote interactions in urban environments are enduring now and for the foreseeable future. These and other similar efforts have a goal not only of understanding coyote urban ecology but of promoting human–coyote coexistence through public education and efforts to decrease human–coyote conflict. Many ecologists consider coexistence and conflict mitigation to be the only sustainable response to urban coyotes, since efforts to eradicate them have not only failed but often create larger problems [5,6,7,8,9][5][6][7][8][9]. Despite this, scientists have limited direct influence on public perceptions. Instead, public opinion reflects individuals’ affective feelings, fear, and beliefs about the species [6,7,8[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13],9,10,11,12,13], which are shaped by personal experience and knowledge [14[14][15],15], social norms—particularly in their interaction with demographic characteristics [15,16][15][16]—and the media.
Because of their central role in framing and priming the public on key social and policy issues like human–coyote interactions [17], the media has significant influence over the public narrative and whether coyotes are viewed as friends or foes [18,19,20][18][19][20]. This type of media coverage can significantly impact affective feelings, beliefs, and support for management policies and, thus, it is essential to understand how the media portrays coyotes in urban environments and whether their portrayals align with the coexistence approach most ecologists advocate.
Of particular importance is understanding whether the media portrays coyotes as aggressive, neutral, or friendly. Headlines that sensationalize and vilify coyotes because of attacks, for example, are likely to draw attention and negatively influence perceptions, since negative news increases negative affective feelings [21] and, for some, increases the likelihood of remembering the event [22]; but it is essential to understand how common these types of stories are, since, though deeply traumatic for those involved, negative human–coyote interactions and actual attacks by coyotes are rare. For example, of the 1100–1300 annual human–coyote interactions in Chicago [23], which can include observations of coyote activity, sightings, direct encounters, or human and pet attacks, the Urban Coyote Research Project documents only approximately a dozen attacks on dogs each year and has only identified a handful of attacks on humans over the last decade [3]. When there are conflicts, they typically stem from five sources: population and urban expansion in housing, infrastructure changes, agriculture alterations, habitat loss, and climate change [24]. In many urban environments, these things are occurring at a rapid and ongoing pace, dramatically increasing human–coyote interactions, the likelihood of media coverage, and the need for the public management of human–coyote relationships.
In general, wildlife is managed at the state and federal levels, but with coyotes and other carnivores more regularly appearing in cities, local governments are called to respond. Municipal management strategies must address a community’s views on coyotes and, because of this, do not always rely on scientific analysis, but instead reflect the community’s norms, values, and beliefs about coyotes [1]. The implication is that local decisions to coexist, deter, relocate, or destroy “problem” animals are often driven by public perceptions of the animal and by vocal community members’ beliefs [24]. When localities do pursue scientifically driven plans, it is often in opposition to public pressure and requires significant public justification and education, as was the case in Belvedere, CA. In the face of calls to hire snipers to eliminate the local coyote population, Belvedere’s City Council passed a scientifically grounded coyote management plan focused on coexistence. Doing so was met with community opposition, and the city had to send letters and develop an educational website to help explain the policy and overcome public disdain [25]. While local government and organizations certainly play an important role in educating the public and influencing perceptions, the media is also critical in shaping views of coyotes and management strategies.
Years of research have demonstrated that the way media outlets depict animal life dramatically influences the public’s view of species [26], with negative depictions and mediated encounters in entertainment venues reducing human–animal connections [27] and potentially inhibiting conservation behaviors [28]. Perhaps predictably, negative perceptions are strongly correlated with media reports depicting wolves as unfriendly and reintroduction as a danger to humans, children, pets, hunting opportunities, livestock, and livelihoods [29]. These findings demonstrate how important media depictions are in shaping support and opposition for scientifically driven ecological policy and the degree to which altered media depictions and public outreach are needed to reshape public perceptions in ways that promote coexistence and conservation. How this happens and what messaging is most effective is part of emerging research, but there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to think that friendliness (or lack thereof) is a key part of media framing both in terms of encouraging support for scientifically sound policy and for our broader success in an ever-changing urban human–animal landscape.
In this context, friendliness connotes a species’ disposition towards goodwill, warmth, and kindness; understanding a species as friendly (and being friendly back) may be key to our ability to coexist from a policy and evolutionary standpoint. While evolutionary theory and popular understanding have largely focused on survival of the fittest, which highlights strength as the key component of survival, Hare and Woods [30,31,32][30][31][32] expand this idea in evolutionary biology with what they call survival of the friendliest. This theoretical framework suggests that human evolution occurred not simply because of ferocity but because of friendliness and cooperation. Though the authors largely focus on human–human friendliness, they also discuss the importance of this process for human relationships with nonhuman animals, where learning to work and coexist with nonhuman animal life has been essential for everything from the development of agriculture to the expansion of human territory.

2. The Conflict of Urban Human and Coyote

2.1. State and National Policy around Coyotes

Because of their liminal status, coyotes have limited protections in the US. Coyote hunting in rural environments is common, as is euthanizing “problem” animals in urban environments [38][33]. While other predators like bears have limits on how many individuals can be killed in a season, there are no limits on coyote hunting. State hunting laws vary, but in most states, such as Washington, the Department of Fish and Wildlife do not classify coyotes as game animals, which means a state license is required to hunt and trap them. However, license enforcement for coyote removal is challenging, because individuals can kill or trap coyotes without a license if they pose a threat to the property owner’s immediate family, employee, tenant, crops, or domestic animals [39][34]. Researchers estimate that approximately half a million coyotes are trapped, poisoned, or shot each year by federal agencies, with most killed by the USDA Wildlife Services division with the stated purpose of protecting livestock [38][33]. Although urban coyotes are not killed at the same rate as those in rural or agricultural areas, calls for eradication have mounted in towns and cities, like Nahant and Belvedere, where residents believe the coyote population poses a significant threat. Importantly though, evolving research suggests that all methods of eradicating coyotes have largely failed, with many having unintended consequences, such as the disruption of hierarchies within packs leading to increased reproduction rates [40][35].

2.2. Urban Coyotes

Over the last several hundred years coyotes have expanded their traditional range from the central US and Mexican prairies to the entire continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and into Central America; today, they have a presence in virtually every US city [41,42][36][37]. Although seeing signs of coyotes can be unnerving for urban populations, the species is considered a nuisance primarily because of the perceived risk of attack rather than infestation, disease, or property damage that lead other species to be considered pests. Yet, despite their dramatically increased range, coyote attacks on humans and pets remain rare [34,43][38][39]. In part, this is because coyotes are considered synanthropic animals that adapt to coexist with humans. For example, research shows that rural coyotes are active both day and night but urban coyotes dramatically reduce their daytime activity to avoid humans [44][40]. Because of this adaptation, as coyote populations increase, human–coyote encounters and attacks remain relatively low. Despite this, perhaps the single greatest reason that attacks still occur is that even in urban environments, coyotes need natural or semi-natural spaces where they can live without human interference; when these areas decrease, such as when cities expand into previously wild areas, communities experience more encounters and attacks. For example, when building density increased and forested areas decreased in Charlotte, North Carolina, human–coyote encounters increased [45][41]. In general, coyote attacks on humans are more common in areas with higher rates of development and less forest cover, with highly developed areas in the Western US experiencing more attacks than other areas [46][42]. Importantly, given the fact that coyotes continue to expand their range and have largely been immune to eradication efforts, many ecologists now believe the greatest deterrent urban populations have to coyote encounters and attacks is behavioral change among humans [5]. Human actions, like taking dogs on off-leash walks at dusk or leaving food out for wildlife, often precipitate attacks. In fact, in one study, in one-third of cases where coyotes attacked, humans had previously been feeding them in the area [47][43]. As a result, there are increasing pressures to develop human-centered management plans that focus on things like keeping trash in closed containers, avoiding coyote habitats at dawn and dusk, and ensuring that pets are supervised and/or on leash. Plans focused on coexistence are emerging in cities throughout the United States and Canada but often require extensive work to address negative public perceptions and fear. A study out of Cape Town, South Africa, demonstrates that as much as 60 percent of the public’s tolerance of a species in an urban environment reflects their estimation of the risks and benefits the species brings [48][44]; as a result, municipal education efforts are often focused on highlighting coyotes’ potential benefits—like reducing the rodent population—while educating the public on how to reduce the risks and even transferring some of the causal story about the risk’s existence to human action. For example, when Toronto launched the Coyote Response Strategy, which focuses on coexistence and human behavioral change, it held community meetings, developed park signage, and created a website to educate the public about coyotes and the plan [41][36] while also making clear that the public was responsible for protecting their families and pets from their coyote cohabitants in common spaces [49][45].

2.3. Perceptions of Urban Coyotes

Although studies assessing the public’s view of coyotes are limited, recent research emphasizes how important beliefs and affective feelings are in shaping perspectives of the species. In their study of Newfoundlanders, Frank and colleagues [50][46] identified several key beliefs that drive negative views of coyotes, namely, that coyotes do not have a right to exist, are unimportant for future generations, and significantly impact daily life. Similarly, Drake and colleagues [33][47] analyzed public views of coyotes across four North Carolina cities to assess how place and personal characteristics influenced perceptions of danger, views on living near coyotes, and support for lethal removal. The strongest predictor of support for coyotes and opposition to lethal removal were respondents’ affective connections, which are positive emotional bonds with nature and a broad understanding of the self within the context of nature [51][48]. One of Drake and colleagues’ [33][47] most important findings was that whether respondents’ were knowledgeable about coyotes biological traits or not made virtually no difference in their support of coexistence or extermination, emphasizing the central place of feelings and beliefs about the species. This work echoes that conducted by Worcester and Boelens [52][49], who found that people who believe that urban wildlife is beneficial are less likely to see coyotes as problems and support coexistence. Finally, in a small survey study in Madison, Wisconsin, researchers found only approximately one-third of respondents had positive views of coyotes, with most identifying more risks than benefits from the species’ presence. These views were strongly correlated to respondents’ underlying ecological beliefs and, for some respondents, were also connected to the amount of attention they gave to wildlife news [53][50]. Together, these findings suggest that when urban residents have positive affective views of coyotes and believe they belong in the environment, they are more willing to support coexistence. While beliefs about coyotes come from a variety of places, ranging from underlying environmental views [53][50] to the type of community one lives in [54][51], one of the most well-established drivers of public perceptions of urban carnivores is the media [18,19,55,56][18][19][52][53].

2.4. News Coverage of Urban Coyotes

Coverage of coyotes as a social problem in urban environments is widespread [19]. Coyote attacks, in particular, prompt short-term increases in media coverage that not only describe the human trauma and individual problem animal but often present coyotes more broadly as pests and problems [17]. This short-term coverage negatively influences perceptions of coyotes, especially when they attack children [17]. Importantly, while extreme negative events like attacks on children are likely to spark justifiable concern or fear, the media often distorts neutral events in ways that amplify negative views. In their assessment of new stories about coyotes from the late 1990s and early 2000s, Alexander and Quinn [19] found that simple sightings and interactions were often described as attacks and that coyotes were frequently depicted as unnatural and invasive in urban environments. At that time, they and other scholars began calling for greater media literacy in the coverage of coyotes, pushing for a move away from unfriendly narratives to discussions of space sharing and coexistence [19]. This call was important because misinformation about coyotes is a significant barrier to effective and sustainable coyote management. When communities view coyotes as problematic or invasive, public attitudes often encourage their removal or extermination [17], and negative media attention about coyotes is a leading driver of fear and disinterest in coexistence in urban environments [57][54]. A decade after scholars began calling for the media to alter its narrative, there is some evidence of progress [58][55]. While the media still depicts coyotes as a risk in many areas, there is also a growing acknowledgment that coyotes belong in human environments. Looking at the media coverage of coyotes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Chino, California, Hunold and Lloro [58][55] found that, while people are not readily excited about coyotes in their communities, they recognize that habitat disruption has led to an increase in urban coyotes and that these animals belong. Changing coverage from pest and problem to coexistence has a real impact on public perceptions [58][55] and positively impacts support for urban coexistence efforts. As people think about urban environments’ long-term sustainability and ability to adapt and coexist in an ever-changing landscape, it is particularly important to evaluate whether there are more widespread changes in the media that transition framing away from the “coyote problem” and instead adopt language that is not entirely unfriendly.

2.5. Survival of the Friendliest and Coexistence with Urban Wildlife

Among evolutionary anthropologists and biologists, the theory of friendliness emerged [30,31,32][30][31][32] as an extension of the human self-domestication hypothesis [32]. The base concepts can be traced to Aristotle and his theory of friendship, which distinguishes friendship from goodness, pleasure, and utility [59,60][56][57]. The theory of friendliness focuses on the third component, utility, and specifically considers it in relation to human evolution. The argument is that humans evolved through cooperative networks that were utility driven. Hare and Woods [32] argue that, while much of evolutionary theory has been centered on Darwin’s survival of the fittest [61][58], the connotation of what fitness is has remained connected to physicality, suggesting that strength is the leading feature in survival, when, in actuality, Darwin was talking about the ability to reproduce. Hostility and chaos are not conducive to reproduction and, therefore, friendliness and cooperation may be more beneficial for survival than mere strength. In this context, friendliness refers to the demonstration of goodwill, showing warmth, and being kind. Hare and Woods [32] argue that people need to rethink human evolution to move away from a physical and combative perspective, instead centering cooperation and friendship as key mechanisms of our ability to meet both basic and complex needs. In this revision of evolution, Hare and Woods [32] assert that those who could cooperate for utility were more inclined to survival. Although this is a theory based on human evolution, they extend the idea to human–animal relationships, and the theory can be applied to evaluate some of the most important attitudinal shifts necessary to reduce cross-species conflict in urban environments. Hare and Woods [32], themselves, began working on a cross-species theoretical application, starting their work with a description of the cognitive abilities of Hare’s dog Oreo. The vignette showcases how cross-species interactions around friendliness, even without a shared verbal language, dictate access and utility across species. They then use the domestication of the wolf as a central component of their theoretical presentation, explaining that the evolution of dogs demonstrates how survival of the friendliest equates to domestication and coexistence among species. They argue that when wolves decided to engage human settlements approximately 15,000 to 25,000 years ago, the friendliest among them bred and increasingly interacted with humans, who then set about changing their physiology and composition through breeding. Today, people know that friendliness on both sides has led to an unmatched, mutually beneficial relationship, and while people do not share verbal language with domesticated dogs, people each understand the others’ communicative gestures, something Hare and Woods [32] identify as a friendly strategy. In terms of human and coyote encounters, friendliness between species is essential for both species’ safety and wellbeing. Negative depictions of coyotes and eradication methods have negative implications for human wellbeing—for example, their removal can lead to large increases in rodent populations—whereas sustainable management practices that promote coexistence and altered human behavior have been shown to decrease negative interactions and promote a unification between humans and animals. As noted previously, the single greatest predictor of support for human–coyote coexistence was individual affectual connection or perception of coyotes as friendly or part of the community [54][51]. If friendliness is such an important factor in human survival and coexistence among species, then how people depict species has implications for human and animal wellbeing.

References

  1. Whittle, P. Massachusetts Town Hires Feds to Kill Coyotes for $5000–$10,000; The Associated Press, 2022; Available online: https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2022/12/massachusetts-town-hires-feds-to-kill-coyotes-for-5000-10000.html (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  2. IUCN Human-Wildlife Conflict. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/human-wildlife-conflict (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  3. Urban Coyote Research Project Conflicts: A Research Perspective: Attacks in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Available online: https://urbancoyoteresearch.com/coyote-info/conflicts-research-perspective (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  4. Woodland Park Zoo Seattle Urban Carnivore Project. Available online: https://www.zoo.org/seattlecarnivores (accessed on 29 July 2023).
  5. Weaver, M.J.; Monterastelli, A.; Strauss, E.G.; Romolini, M. A Collaborative Social-Ecological Research Approach to Inform & Address Urban Coyote Management Challenges. Cities Environ. (CATE) 2023, 16, 9.
  6. Treves, A.; Naughton-Treves, L. Evaluating lethal control in the management of human-wildlife conflicts. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence; Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz, A., Eds.; University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 86–106.
  7. Berger, K.M. Carnivore-livestock conflicts: Effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 751–761.
  8. Knowlton, F.F.; Gese, E.M.; Jaeger, M.M. Invited synthesis paper: Coyote depredation control: An interface between biology and management. J. Range Manag. 1999, 52, 398–412.
  9. Mitchell, B.R.; Jaegar, M.M.; Barrett, R.H. Coyote depredation management: Current methods and research needs. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2004, 32, 1209–1218. Available online: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/345 (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  10. Bath, A.; Olszanska, A.; Okarma, H. From a human dimensions perspective, the unknown large carnivore: Public attitudes toward Eurasian lynx in Poland. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2008, 13, 31–46.
  11. Kellert, S.R. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  12. Kellert, S.R.; Black, M.; Rush, C.R.; Bath, A.J. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 977–990.
  13. Engel, M.T.; Vaske, J.J.; Bath, A.J.; Marchini, S. Predicting acceptability of jaguars and pumas in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2016, 21, 427–444.
  14. Glikman, J.A.; Vaske, J.J.; Bath, A.J.; Ciucci, P.; Boitani, L. Residents’ support for wolf and bear conservation: The moderating influence of knowledge. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2012, 58, 295–302.
  15. Zimmermann, B.; Wabakken, P.; Dötterer, M. Human-carnivore interactions in Norway: How does the re-appearance of large carnivores affect people’s attitudes and levels of fear. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 2001, 76, 1–17.
  16. Majić, A.; Bath, A.J. Changes in attitudes toward wolves in Croatia. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 255–260.
  17. Lu, H.; Siemer, W.F.; Baumer, M.S.; Decker, D.J.; Gulde, A. Effects of Message Framing and Past Experience on Intentions to Prevent Human–Coyote Conflicts. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2016, 21, 506–521.
  18. Alexander, S.M.; Quinn, M.S. Human coyote (Canis latrans) Interaction in Canadian Urban Parks and Green Space: Preliminary Findings from a Media-Content Analysis. In Proceedings of the Canadian Parks for Tomorrow: 40th Anniversary Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, 8–11 May 2008.
  19. Alexander, S.M.; Quinn, M.S. Portrayal of Interactions between Humans and Coyotes (Canis latrans): Content Analysis of Canadian Print Media (1998–2010). Cities Environ. (CATE) 2011, 4, 9.
  20. Siemer, W.F.; Decker, D.J.; Shanahan, J.E.; Wieczorek Hudenko, H.A. How Do Suburban Coyote Attacks Affect Residents’ Perceptions? Insights from a New York Case Study. Cities Environ. (CATE) 2014, 7, 7.
  21. de Hoog, N.; Verboon, P. Is the news making us unhappy? The influence of daily news exposure on emotional states. Br. J. Psychol. 2020, 111, 157–173.
  22. Marin, M.F.; Morin-Major, J.K.; Schramek, T.E.; Beaupré, A.; Perna, A.; Juster, R.P.; Lupien, S.J. There is No News Like Bad News: Women are More Remembering and Stress Reactive After Reading Real Negative News than Men. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e47189.
  23. Molina, T. Coyote Reports Are Up in Chicago with Lincoln Park Seeing More Than Any Other Community. CBS News. 2022. Available online: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/coyotes-chicago-lincoln-park/ (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  24. Schell, C.J.; Stanton, L.A.; Young, J.K.; Angeloni, L.M.; Lambert, J.E.; Breck, S.W.; Murray, M.H. The Evolutionary Consequences of Human–Wildlife Conflict in Cities. Evol. Appl. 2021, 14, 178–197.
  25. Sivanandam, H. Belvedere Approves Response Plan for Encounters with Coyotes. The Ark. 2023. Available online: https://www.thearknewspaper.com/live/belvedere-approves-response-plan-for-encounters-with-coyotes (accessed on 8 July 2023).
  26. Small, E. In Defence of the World’s Most Reviled Vertebrate Animals: Part 1: ‘Lower’ Species (Sharks, Snakes, Vultures, Frogs & Toads). Biodiversity 2021, 22, 159–193.
  27. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J.; Hughes, K.; Dierking, L. Conservation Learning in Wildlife Tourism Settings: Lessons from Research in Zoos and Aquariums. Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 367–383.
  28. Pooley, S.; Bhatia, S.; Vasava, A. Rethinking the Study of Human–Wildlife Coexistence. Conserv. Biol. 2021, 35, 784–793.
  29. Niemiec, R.; Berl, R.E.; Gonzalez, M.; Teel, T.; Camara, C.; Collins, M.; Salerno, J.; Crooks, K.; Schultz, C.; Breck, S. Public Perspectives and Media Reporting of Wolf Reintroduction in Colorado. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9074.
  30. Hare, B. Survival of the Friendliest: Homo Sapiens Evolved via Selection for Prosociality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017, 68, 155–186.
  31. Hare, B.; Woods, V.; House, R.; Darwish, E. Survival of the Friendliest. New Sci. 2013, 224, 30–31.
  32. Hare, B.; Woods, V. Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity; Random House Trade Paperbacks: New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 0-399-59068-4.
  33. Flores, D. Stop Killing the Coyotes. New York Times. 2016. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/opinion/stop-killing-coyotes.html (accessed on 1 July 2023).
  34. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Coyote. Available online: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/species/canis-latrans#conflict (accessed on 5 July 2023).
  35. LeSher, A. Coyote Control in the United States: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back in Nuisance Abatement. Drake L. Rev. 2020, 68, 417.
  36. Clement, B.; Bunce, S. Coyotes and More-than-Human Commons: Exploring Co-Existence through Toronto’s Coyote Response Strategy. Urban Geogr. 2022, 1–19.
  37. North American Distribution Urban Coyote Research Project. Available online: https://urbancoyoteresearch.com/coyote-info/north-american-distribution (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  38. White, L.A.; Gehrt, S.D. Coyote Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2009, 14, 419–432.
  39. Breck, S.W.; Poessel, S.A.; Mahoney, P.; Young, J.K. The Intrepid Urban Coyote: A Comparison of Bold and Exploratory Behavior in Coyotes from Urban and Rural Environments. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2104.
  40. Lange, K. Coyotes Among Us. Ser.-All Anim. 2009-15 2011, 14, 5.
  41. Wine, S.; Gagné, S.A.; Meentemeyer, R.K. Understanding Human–Coyote Encounters in Urban Ecosystems Using Citizen Science Data: What Do Socioeconomics Tell Us? Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 159–170.
  42. Poessel, S.A.; Gese, E.M.; Young, J.K. Environmental Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Coyotes and Conflicts in Urban Areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 259–269.
  43. Young, J.K.; Hammill, E.; Breck, S.W. Interactions with Humans Shape Coyote Responses to Hazing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 20046.
  44. Kansky, R.; Kidd, M.; Knight, A.T. A Wildlife Tolerance Model and Case Study for Understanding Human Wildlife Conflicts. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 201, 137–145.
  45. City of Toronto. News Release: Winter Sightings of Coyotes Are Normal in Parts of Toronto. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca/news/winter-sightings-of-coyotes-are-normal-in-parts-of-toronto-3/ (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  46. Frank, B.; Glikman, J.A.; Sutherland, M.; Bath, A.J. Predictors of Extreme Negative Feelings Toward Coyote in Newfoundland. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2016, 21, 297–310.
  47. Drake, D.; Dubay, S.; Allen, M.L. Evaluating Human–Coyote Encounters in an Urban Landscape Using Citizen Science. J. Urban Ecol. 2021, 7, juaa032.
  48. Kals, E. Affective Connection to Nature. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 83–88.
  49. Worcester, R.E.; Boelens, R. The Co-Existing with Coyotes Program in Vancouver, BC. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Proceedings of Wildlife Damage Management Conferences, Corpus Christi, TX, USA, 9–12 April 2007.
  50. Nardi, A.; Shaw, B.; Brossard, D.; Drake, D. Public Attitudes toward Urban Foxes and Coyotes: The Roles of Perceived Risks and Benefits, Political Ideology, Ecological Worldview, and Attention to Local News about Urban Wildlife. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2020, 25, 405–420.
  51. Drake, M.D.; Nils Peterson, M.; Griffith, E.H.; Olfenbuttel, C.; DePerno, C.S.; Moorman, C.E. How Urban Identity, Affect, and Knowledge Predict Perceptions about Coyotes and Their Management. Anthrozoös 2020, 33, 5–19.
  52. Bombieri, G.; Nanni, V.; Delgado, M.D.M.; Fedriani, J.M.; López-Bao, J.V.; Pedrini, P.; Penteriani, V. Content Analysis of Media Reports on Predator Attacks on Humans: Toward an Understanding of Human Risk Perception and Predator Acceptance. Bioscience 2018, 68, 577–584.
  53. Kalof, L.; Cameron Thomas Whitley; Bell, J. Media Representations of Animals in Urban Canada. In Animals in Human Society: Amazing Creatures Who Share Our Planet; Moorehead, D., Ed.; University Press of American, Inc.: Lanham, ML, USA, 2015; pp. 105–126.
  54. Project Coyote John Maguranis. Available online: https://projectcoyote.org/about/john-maguranis/ (accessed on 26 July 2023).
  55. Hunold, C.; Lloro, T. There Goes the Neighborhood: Urban Coyotes and the Politics of Wildlife. J. Urban Aff. 2022, 44, 156–173.
  56. Pangle, L.S. Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; ISBN 1-139-44186-8.
  57. Sherman, N. Aristotle on Friendship and the Shared Life. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 1987, 47, 589–613.
  58. Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1964; ISBN 0-674-63752-6.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback