The impact of language in conflicts over urban coyotes

Abstract

Wildlife managers and others charged with resolving human-coyote conflict in urban and suburban areas cannot focus solely on ecology and coyote behavior. The perceptions of the people living in the affected communities play a significant role in the resolution of human-coyote conflict. In this study, we explore how residents of two communities in suburban Denver, CO, USA, mentally processed, made sense of, and acted upon human–coyote interactions in the face of conflict. By conducting interviews and using qualitative content analysis to explore existing documents, we examined how the use of language reflected and exacerbated the conflict over coyote management. Themes of violence, crime and war ran throughout our data. Anger and accusations of extremism were prevalent. Closely tied to the violent language and imagery used was a discussion of tolerance and intolerance, taking what is generally human-centric language and using it with wildlife. In addition, labeling coyotes as not belonging in an area (although they are a native species) further increased the urge to protect family and pets from the perception of the threat against ‘the other’, sometimes expressed in inflammatory language. Political and other messaging can either enhance or reduce a sense of threat, and we found that the language used in this debate enhanced the perceived threat of both coyotes and policy opponents. Finding ways to defuse this language could be a step toward a greater understanding of how to live with local wildlife in a way that minimizes harm to people and to the animals.