Coywolves can live successfully in a variety of habitats (for related information, see my post on range/diet). The primary sources of mortality in the majority of these environments are anthropogenic (i.e., trapping, shooting, car accidents, and poisoning). Poisoning remained a widespread method of predator eradication until 1972, when its use on federal lands was banned in the United States; the use of household rodenticides is, however, still allowed.
Though a portion of the general public has become sympathetic towards these animals in recent years [1-2], deliberate killings still occur on city margins. An example of this was discovered during a 2005 study of a pack of coyotes in eastern Massachusetts [3]. Activity and movement patterns in this study were typical; the coyotes did not kill local pets or physically endanger citizens, but rather increased their nocturnal behavior to avoid people and displayed territorial behavior towards transient individuals. Even so, sightings of the individuals in this pack—Maeve, Jet, and Cour—led to some upset.
All three individuals were found dead during the study; in each case, the cause of death was ruled an anticoagulant pesticide (Brodifacoum, a second-generation poison and active ingredient in some forms of rat poison). Because all three displayed no abnormal behavior in the week leading up to their deaths and all died in less than a week, it is likely that, rather than having eaten poisoned prey, they were purposefully dosed at high concentrations.
Public support for the lethal management of carnivores has noticeably declined over time. Jackman and Way surveyed Cape Cod voters to examine “knowledge of and attitudes toward current coyote hunting policies and practices in Massachusetts” [1, p. 188]. Knowledge was largely limited, with only 40% being aware that Massachusetts has a hunting season for coyotes and 14% being aware that there are no bag limits—meaning a hunter can kill as many coyotes as they want. Responses to the survey indicated that only 23% supported the no-bag limits; the “only group to include majority support (62%)” [1, p. 190] comprised frequent hunters, who represented only a small percentage of the sampled public.
Anyone wishing to determine shifts in attitude towards and/or awareness of coywolves should consider the use of surveys à la Jackman and Way [1]. I wanted to incorporate a survey to determine whether residents of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania (where I am currently based) had noticeably different stances, but I did not give myself enough time to get IRB approval and properly analyze data. I would also recommend a potential partnership with an ecologist and/or biologist. Because I am an anthropologist and have little background in those fields, I was therefore somewhat limited in my view/understanding.
References:
[1] Jackman, J.L. & Way, J.G. (2017). Once I found out: Awareness of and attitudes toward coyote hunting policies in Massachusetts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(2), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1397824
[3] Way, J.G., Cifuni, S.M., Eatough, D.L., & Strauss, E.G. (2006). Rat poison kills a pack of eastern coyotes, Canis latrans, in an urban area. Canadian Field Naturalist, 120(4), 478-480.
TL;DR:
Coywolf mortality is largely anthropogenic
Attitudes towards coywolves have improved over time
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have no bag limits on coyotes; Pennsylvania has no set hunting season
Hybridization | DNA Analyses | Range & Diet | Behavior & Ecology | Conservation | The Anthropocene
Coping. Lots of meanings, lots of negative connotations, used widely by health professionals, rejected by others (why would you need coping skills if you can get rid of your pain?).
I’ll bet one of the problems with coping is that we don’t really know what we’re defining. Is coping the result of dealing with something? Or is it the process of dealing with something? Or is it the range of…
Women and European Employment
This is the first comprehensive and up-to-date study of the contribution of women and men to changing European economic activity patterns covering all fifteen members states. Based on the work of the European Commission's network of experts on women's employment, it draws on both national and European data sources. The book links trends in the structures of employment with new comparative data on the role of systems of welfare provision in order to explore economic activity patterns by gender. Participation patterns of women still vary widely within Europe, so much attention is paid to the institutions--both in the labour market and welfare--which help to explain these variations. W0mеn αnd Eǖrοpеαn EmploУmеnt
