Proactive use of intensive aversive conditioning increases probability of retreat by coyotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coyotes ( Canis latrans ) are showing increasingly bold behaviors toward people and their pets throughout North America. Bold behavior by wildlife might be reduced by hazing and aversive conditioning, which is recommended in many management plans for coyotes, but with little information about how it is to be conducted, and few studies have tested this approach. We conducted an online search for coyote management plans across North America to review techniques and recommendations related to the implementation of hazing or aversive conditioning and reported on the implementation of a high‐intensity aversive conditioning program in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Almost all the management plans recommended hazing coyotes, most often by using a combination of noises, lights, and movements, but only 20% of 71 plans recommended high‐intensity techniques like those used by the contractors in Calgary. Contractors there searched for coyotes in 72 public park areas where members of the public had submitted reports to a civic call center for bold coyotes, attended sites on 1917 occasions, observed coyotes on 765 occasions, and reported coyote treatments and responses on 734 occasions. The probability of coyote retreats increased by 29%–37% with each additional previous aversive conditioning event at the site and doubled with the presence of dogs and with the application of projected chalk balls prior to the event being investigated, suggesting coyotes learned to avoid contractors. During engagements with contractors, coyote retreat probability declined by 21%–25% with each additional day since the last aversive conditioning engagement, and by 97.2%–97.6% with the presence of dogs and when shots were fired from a paintball gun, presumably because these tools were used only on the boldest coyotes. We found no effect of the presence or past number of aversive conditioning events on the number of coyote reports per week by the public. Although such high‐intensity aversive conditioning is rarely recommended in management plans, our results suggest that its repeated application can reduce coyote boldness over time, but coyotes may not generalize this response to other people owing to visual cues (e.g., high‐visibility vests, consistent vehicles) associated with contractors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".