Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40804460›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Public support for restrictions on the killing of coyotes at odds with organized stakeholder group preferences for management.

Kristina Slagle, Jeremy Bruskotter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kristina SlagleSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. Slagle.44@osu.edu.
Jeremy BruskotterSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesPublic OpinionStakeholder ParticipationAdultAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOhioSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40804460
PMCPMC12350681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.