ArticlePloS one2025
Urban coyotes were observed rarely and retreated consistently from assertive approaches by volunteers in neighborhoods.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human-coyote conflict can arise when coyotes follow, pursue or attack pets or people. Although such attacks are rare, they are typically highly publicized, and leave residents concerned about the presence of coyotes in their neighborhoods. Wildlife managers often promote hazing to mitigate human-coyote conflicts, but this technique for intimidating animals has been studied in coyotes only recently and there are few guidelines for its implementation. We developed a community-based hazing program in Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) implemented by volunteers who patrolled their neighborhoods while recording coyotes and coyote attractants. When coyotes were observed, volunteers walked towards the coyotes and recorded their overt reaction and flight initiation distances. If coyotes did not retreat when volunteers were within 40 m of the animal, volunteers ran towards the coyote while shouting and throwing weighted tennis balls towards the animals. Over two field seasons, we recruited, trained, and engaged 120 volunteers from 71 neighborhoods, who conducted 1598 patrols, observed coyotes in 175 instances, and conducted hazing 23 times. Coyotes retreated before volunteers were within 40 m during 124 (71%) of the observations and retreated immediately from 22 (96%) of the hazing events. We found no evidence that hazing changed subsequent measures of overt reaction or flight initiation distances by coyotes, perhaps because it was implemented too rarely, and its effects on the number or timing of subsequent coyote reports by members of the public were inconsistent. Our study emphasizes the rarity of close encounters with coyotes and the high frequency with which they retreat from human approaches and even directed attention by people. Our study supports the use of community-based hazing to reassure members of the public while potentially promoting wariness in coyotes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.