Coyote Control: The Public Response
Open accessAbstract
A nationwide survey of public attitudes toward coyote control was conducted in 1976. Results from a set of questions addressing related wildlife issues revealed opposition to the killing of animals for food or for population control of predatory species. Forty-five percent also disapproved of legal game hunting. Only incident specific predator control was endorsed by most respondents. Two-thirds of the respondents were aware of the coyote control issue or interested in it and were asked questions about coyote control in particular. Control killing of coyotes, even at risk to nontarget animals, received increasingly more approval as lamb losses were said to increase. However, given a choice of control methods, most respondents preferred the experimental, nonlethal methods. Of currently used lethal methods, fast acting poisons and shooting from the ground were judged more acceptable.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Across North America, coyotes are often persecuted, trapped, and removed even when no actual conflict is occurring.
“Across North America, coyotes are often persecuted, trapped, and removed even when no actual conflict is occurring (Arthur, 1981;Kellert, 1985;Kitchen et al., 2000;Breck et al., 2019).”
From Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs (2024) · cites this paper as Arthur, 1981
The Abstract describes federal, state, and local coyote-control programs, and the Conclusions identify shooting and trapping among current lethal methods. The paper focuses on a U.S. survey and does not establish that coyotes are often removed across North America when no actual conflict is occurring; it notes uncertainty about the extent of sheep losses, which is not the same claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 5 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Cain, S.A. 1975. Predator and pest control. Chapter 25. In H.P. Brokaw (ed.), Wildlife and America. 041-011-00043-2.
- Pearson, E.W. 1975. Sheep-raising in the 17 Western States: Populations, distributions, and trends. J. Range Manage. 28: 27-31.
- Stuby, R., L.M. Arthur, and E.H. Carpenter. 1979. An analysis of public attitudes toward coyote control. Agr. Econ. Rep. U.S. Dep. Agr., Eco- nomics, Statistics, Coop. Serv. in press.
- Authors
- Arthur, L. M.
- Corresponding author
- Arthur, Louise M.
- Venue
- Journal of Range Management
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1981-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14
- ISSN
- 0022-409X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2514264085
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Range Management (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- coyote control, public attitudes, public opinion, predator control, lamb losses, poisons, shooting, game hunting, wildlife population control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
