Evaluating lethal and nonlethal management options for urban coyotes
-
Published source details
Breck S.W., Poessel S.A. & Bonnell M.A. (2017) Evaluating lethal and nonlethal management options for urban coyotes. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 11, 133–145.
Published source details Breck S.W., Poessel S.A. & Bonnell M.A. (2017) Evaluating lethal and nonlethal management options for urban coyotes. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 11, 133–145.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link |
 |
-
Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict
A replicated, controlled study in 2014 of four urban areas in Colorado, USA (Breck et al. 2017) found that attempts to scare away coyotes Canis latrans did not decrease their use of areas also frequently used by people. On trails frequently travelled by people, the overlap between coyote and human activity was similar where community-level programmes were run to scare coyotes and where programmes were not run (data presented as coefficients of overlap, incorporating frequency and timing of use). On trails with less human traffic, overlap between coyote and human activity was greater where programmes were run than where they were not run. These differences were not tested for statistical significance. Four urban park and open space areas were studied. In two, community-level programmes were run. These primarily involved shouting, throwing objects, and/or aggressively approaching coyotes. Activities were promoted by signs, social media, emailing to multiple recipients, education stations and an online video. Programmes were not run in the two control areas. Coyote and human use of trails were monitored using five camera traps in each area for a 3–4-week period, generating >50,000 independent records of people and coyotes.
(Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)
)_2023.JPG)
