Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Urban Human-Coyote Conflicts: Assessing Friendliness as an Indicator of Coexistence.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Molecular Diversity Preservation International Country of Publication: Switzerland NLM ID: 101635614 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 2076-2615 (Print) Linking ISSN: 20762615 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Animals (Basel)
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Basel, Switzerland : Molecular Diversity Preservation International, 2011-
    • Abstract:
      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. We apply and extend the theory of survival of the friendliest to evaluate how the media is framing coyotes and management strategies and what the implications of this framing might be. Through a content analysis of newspaper articles from three different urban areas in the US (Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Boston, MA), from 2000 to 2022, we find that friendly language is used to promote coexistence, while unfriendly language (threat, hostile, unfriendly, and danger) is used to justify eradication. We also find considerable variation in the type of coverage and consistency with scientific consensus across cities, likely reflecting the cities' varied histories and cultural understandings of the species. Given the media's influence on the public's views of coyotes and their support for management strategies, these findings suggest that the media plays a central role in shaping coyote-human relationships and management strategies.
    • References:
      Conserv Biol. 2021 Jun;35(3):784-793. (PMID: 33044026)
      Zookeys. 2018 May 22;(759):81-97. (PMID: 29861647)
      PLoS One. 2020 Feb 5;15(2):e0228881. (PMID: 32023321)
      PeerJ. 2020 May 7;8:e9074. (PMID: 32435536)
      Evol Appl. 2020 Sep 29;14(1):178-197. (PMID: 33519964)
      Annu Rev Psychol. 2017 Jan 3;68:155-186. (PMID: 27732802)
      Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 27;9(1):20046. (PMID: 31882751)
      Conserv Biol. 2006 Jun;20(3):751-61. (PMID: 16909568)
      Environ Manage. 2015 Jan;55(1):159-70. (PMID: 25234049)
      Br J Psychol. 2020 May;111(2):157-173. (PMID: 30900253)
      Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 14;9(1):2104. (PMID: 30765777)
      PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47189. (PMID: 23071755)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: human–animal conflict; human–animal studies; survival of the friendliest; urban coyotes; urban wildlife; wildlife management plans
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20230928 Latest Revision: 20231003
    • Publication Date:
      20250114
    • Accession Number:
      PMC10525200
    • Accession Number:
      10.3390/ani13182903
    • Accession Number:
      37760303