ArticleScientific reports2025
Public support for restrictions on the killing of coyotes at odds with organized stakeholder group preferences for management.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coyotes are expanding their range throughout North America and are typically managed as a "nuisance" species in the U.S.A., where take is legally permitted anywhere, anytime, and no limitations on the number of coyotes any individual can kill. Recent interest surfaced in Ohio around limitations on coyote hunting, and to better understand support and opposition to such limits, we surveyed the public, agricultural producers, hunters, and fur takers regarding several coyote-related variables. We found disparities between public support for limitations and organized stakeholder groups opposition to limitations, highlighting a misalignment, yet likewise found some disagreement within organized stakeholder groups in their opposition to limitations. To understand potential drivers of these preferences, we used regression analyses predicting preferences as a function of emotions, risk and benefit perceptions, symbolic beliefs, and gender. We found for fur takers and producers, beliefs about risks, benefits, and symbolic existence of coyotes predicted their opposition to limitations, while for the public, perceptions of risk and benefit were not predictive of support for limitations. Our results suggest some potential for conflict around coyote management both within organized stakeholder groups themselves, who represent a small proportion of the public, and between these groups and the public writ large.
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.