Carnivores in
Our Midst:
Should We Fear
Them? (Op-Ed)
Marc Bekoff | December 13, 2013 10:30pm ET;
livescience.com
livescience.com
 |
A coyote drinks from a BLM water tank in Colorado. Credit: Bureau of Land Management Colorado |
Marc Bekoff, emeritus professor at the University
of Colorado, Boulder, is one of the world's pioneering
cognitive ethologists, a Guggenheim Fellow, and
co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals. Bekoff's latest book is
Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed (
New World Library, 2013). This essay is adapted
from one that appeared in Bekoff's column Animal
Emotions in Psychology Today. He contributed this
article to LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed &
Insights.
in media based on bad science or no science is bad
for the animals — and it contributes to an unrelenting
war on wildlife. Scientists need to be clear about what
is known and what isn't about animals and their
relations with people. Nonscientists rely heavily on
mass media for disseminating such information, and
even if it is not complete or accurate, people use it to
form opinions about how animals should be treated
if they become a "nuisance" or if they are perceived
to be dangerous.
People kill "pests" far too frequently
Recently, I wrote an essay wondering if, as some claim,
people are really killing animals we call "pests" too
rarely, and I argued that indeed we're killing them far
too frequently. I'm very concerned that incorrect
representations of animals in mass media contribute
to the situation, in part because of media's broad
influence. People don't read about all of the friendly,
or non-threatening encounters humans have with
animals in their midst, but rather, when there is an
attack or some sort of "aggressive" or "assertive"
interaction, it makes the headlines.
In November 2012 I was surprised to see an essay
by Jill Reillyin The Daily Mail (UK) titled "Wolves
and mountain lions 'poised to invade densely
populated cities in the United States'."
A number of people had written to me about the
topic, so I thought it best to respond, which I did
at the time stating that an "invasion" is simply not
happening and the word "invade" is incredibly
misleading and fear-provoking. A recent essay
in Time magazine claiming people are too lenient
on "pests," including carnivores who should be
feared, made me think again about just how
powerful and misleading media can be.
Reilly's essay on wolves and mountain lions
began as follows: "Wolves and mountain lions
could soon be a more common sight in densely
populated cities in the United States, experts
fear." Some experts fear would have been more
correct, and as far as I know, they don't really
fear the presence of these magnificent animals,
they worry that if people begin to fear them the
animals will lose. Well-respected coyote expert,
Stan Gehrt, of Ohio State University, claims in
the Reilly article that, "Thecoyote is the test case
for other animals," including gray wolves and
mountain lions (cougars). By test case, Gehrt is
referring to the fact that predators are supposedly
a widespread threat to human safety and how
people respond to the presence of coyotes will
influence how they feel about the presence of
other predators who, in fact, are rather different
from coyotes, and who only very rarely attack
humans.
While some people may accept that sweeping claim,
I believe it is highly questionable because coyotes
have vastly different predatory habits and life styles
than either wolves or mountain lions and solid
science shows this to be the case. For extensive
details on the fascinating lives of wolves please
see the two excellent books"A New Era for Wolves
and People: Wolf Recovery, Human Attitudes, and
Policy" (2009, University of Calgary Press) and "The
World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology,
Behaviour and Management" (2010, University of
Calgary Press) edited by wolf experts Marco Musiani,
Luigi Boitani and Paul Paquet, and for more
information on mountain lions, check out theCougar
Fund.
What do available data show? First and most
importantly, coyotes very rarely attack livestock.
According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture
report: Less than a quarter of one percent, 0.23
percent, of the American cattle inventory was lost
to native carnivores and dogs in 2010. Domestic
dog attacks and bites directed toward humans are
incredibly more common and this is not surprising
because there are many more dogs than coyotes
in areas where people live.
Between 1960 and 2006 there were only 142 coyote
attacks on 159 victims in the United States and
Canada. It's estimated that between three and five
people are attacked in the United States each year.
To be sure, this is regrettable, but hardly something
worth media hysterics.
Compare coyote attacks with attacks by domestic
dogs. According to DogBiteLaw.com, in the United
States, about 1,000 people a day are treated in
emergency rooms for dog bites and in 2010 alone
there were34 fatal dog attacks.
While these numbers might be difficult to compare
because of the millions of dogs in close proximity
to humans — in contrast to the comparably few
coyotes who live around humans — it's clear that
many more humans suffer from dog attacks than
coyote attacks.
Burrito buffet: Coyotes have more
opportunities to attack than they take
I have no doubt that coyotes have the opportunity
to do significantly more harm than they do, but
they choose not to do so. In areas where they
are known to live — at least transiently — attacks
have not been reported more often than in areas
where they are only seen occasionally. In and
around my hometown of Boulder, Colorado, the
extremely rare confrontations between coyotes
and humans have occurred where coyotes were
known to be fed, either intentionally or
unintentionally. One area was nicknamed the
"burrito buffet" because these Mexican delicacies
were found scattered all about. It's not surprising
that animals are attracted to food and coyotes,
like many other animals, are opportunists and
have a very broad diet.
My own experience with coyotes and other urban
animals is that they have a healthy respect for
people and actually try to avoid humans most of
the time. When I've asked colleagues about this
impression, they all agreed. And, in some areas
where coyotes are known to live fairly regularly,
there have never been any reported confrontations.
When Canadian folksinger Taylor Mitchell was
tragically killed by coyotes in October 2009, this
was the first known fatal attack by coyotes on a
human, and it still isn't clear what exactly happened.
In a documentary about this horrific incident called
"Killed by coyotes?," Gehrt claimed that the coyotes
were motivated to kill and eat Mitchell. However,
when I talked with other coyote experts along with
my own take on this horrific incident, this simply
cannot be known based on the reconstruction of
the scene that was made public, and it would be
very difficult to know if this were so even if someone
saw what actually happened. Reconstructions of
such incidents can be fraught with error. (Following
the incident, Taylor's mother wrote a note of thanks
for the support her family received and her remarks
about how Taylor would not have wanted the
coyotes to be killed.)
Who's afraid of the big bad coyote?
Gehrt has also claimed that "People living in urban
areas are going to have to get used to predators
on their doorstep." I frankly don't see how anyone
can feel comfortable making this claim. Yes,
predators eat other nonhuman animals, but
because attacks on humans are incredibly rare,
such a statement is far too sensational based on
what we actually know about the behavior of these
animals and the rarity of their encounters, serious
and otherwise, with humans. Because he is a
spokesperson for, and an expert on, urban
coyotes whose research and writings I often
consult, Gehrt needs to be clear about what
is speculation and what is based on science.
Speculation just adds fuel tothe unrelenting war
on wildlife — and the fable about never crying
wolf comes to mind.
In fact, what researchers do know — and some
of this is based on Gehrt's own laudable work
— is that coyotes largely avoid people even in
densely populated areas. They are not at our
"doorstep" just waiting to attack or harass us.
For example, studies discussed in Coyotes in
Our Midst show they have shifted to a more
nocturnal life in cities to avoid people. And,
wolves and mountain lions don't live near
enough to many "densely populated cities"
to cause much concern and attacks. I don't
know of any attack on a human by either a
wild wolf or a wild mountain lion in an urban
setting. Mountain lion attacks are incredibly
rare, as noted by Marc Lallanilla in a previous
essay for LiveScience, and there have only
been two recorded fatal attacks on humans
by wild wolves in North America and around
two dozen nonfatal attacks in approximately
the last 100 years.
Camilla Fox of Project Coyote points out in her co-authored book "Coyotes in Our Midst," coyotes are smart, adaptable, resilient and deserving of respect and appreciation for the many ecological
benefits they provide in both urban and rural
areas (you can download a free copy of her
book here). Let's appreciate America's song
dogs for who they really are.
There's always a choice about where to live
There's always a choice about where to live (for
people, not wildlife who are continually being
displaced by humans) and how to coexist with
other animals. Claims about how dangerous
predators are and how people should fear
them feeds into the hands of people who want
to harm or kill the urban and other animals into
whose homes people have moved.
Having had many close encounters with the
black bears and mountain lions living around
my mountain home, who are very wary and try
to avoid me and my few neighbors and keep
a healthy distance between us unless someone
leaves food around, I have a healthy respect
for them. I've had to change my lifestyle, and
that of my companion dogs, because of them,
and I would never want them removed or
harmed because of their presence on their
home turf. If I don't like that they're around,
I should have never moved into their living
rooms, and I can always leave when I decide
they've become "pests" or "too dangerous."
It's clear that killing these animals doesn't work
because others come in and fill the niche where
they lived — I feel much more comfortable living
with resident bears and cougars who know my
and my neighbors' habits.
Media and scientists need to be clear about
what we know and don't know, and we need
to strive for peaceful coexistence with all the
animals with whom we share our homes and
into whose homes we have moved and
redecorated. Humane education programs
that focus on peaceful coexistence are on
the rise across the United States, and both
nonhumans and humans will benefit from
these efforts.
Bekoff's most recent Op-Ed was "Have
People Really Killed Pests Too Rarely?"
This article was adapted from "Urban
Carnivores: Are They As'Bad'As Some
Make Them Seem?" in Psychology Today.
The views expressed are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the publisher. This version
of the article was originally published
on LiveScience
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment