ArticlePDF Available

Human-Wildlife Coexistence in Urban Wildlife Management: Insights from Nonlethal Predator Management and Rodenticide Bans

Authors:

Abstract

Conceptions of human–wildlife coexistence that acknowledge nonhuman wild animals as fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces are starting to influence urban wildlife management practices. Insofar as at least some wild animals have successfully achieved membership in urban society, how has this revaluation affected how urban wildlife is governed? Our interpretive policy analysis explores this question in two areas of urban wildlife management where practices are becoming less lethal: predator management and rodent control. A directed qualitative content analysis of U.S. urban wildlife management plans and rodent control strategies reveals a shift from conflict to coexistence as the basis for understanding human–wildlife relations in urban settings. Indiscriminate killing of urban wildlife is condemned as unethical as well as impractical, and lethal control figures as a measure of last resort that must be rationally justified. Commensal rodents, however, do not benefit from this shift toward coexistence between humans and nonhuman species. Campaigns to restrict the use of rodenticides are intended to protect carnivores, not the rodents themselves. Though urban wildlife management is consistent with some elements of the vision of multispecies flourishing developed by human–animal studies scholars, not all species benefit equally from this transition, and the legitimacy of wild animals’ claims on shared urban spaces often remains contingent on their good behavior.
animals
Article
Human–Wildlife Coexistence in Urban Wildlife
Management: Insights from Nonlethal Predator
Management and Rodenticide Bans
Christian Hunold 1, * and Maz Mazuchowski 2
1Department of Politics, Drexel University, 3025 MacAlister Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
2Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science, Drexel University, 2024 MacAlister Hall,
Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; amm665@drexel.edu
*Correspondence: hunoldc@drexel.edu
Received: 10 September 2020; Accepted: 24 October 2020; Published: 28 October 2020


Simple Summary:
We seek to understand how U.S. cities manage human coexistence with wild
animals that are often disliked, specifically coyotes and rats. To this end, we analyze urban wildlife
management plans from around the country that propose to strengthen human–wildlife coexistence.
Remarkably, some cities are learning to tolerate and even welcome wild predators, such as coyotes,
as long as
they do not endanger human safety. Killing aggressive individuals remains a management
option of last resort. Alternatively, rats are not tolerated at all, and the use of rodenticides to control
rat populations remains widespread. Emerging local restrictions on the use of some rodenticides seek
to protect the lives of carnivores who feed on rodents. We discuss what the increased popularity of
less lethal forms of urban wildlife management can tell us about the capacity of cities to promote the
wellbeing not only of people but of wild animals too.
Abstract:
Conceptions of human–wildlife coexistence that acknowledge nonhuman wild animals as
fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces are starting to influence urban
wildlife management practices. Insofar as at least some wild animals have successfully achieved
membership in urban society, how has this revaluation aected how urban wildlife is governed?
Our interpretive policy analysis explores this question in two areas of urban wildlife management
where practices are becoming less lethal: predator management and rodent control. A directed
qualitative content analysis of U.S. urban wildlife management plans and rodent control strategies
reveals a shift from conflict to coexistence as the basis for understanding human–wildlife relations
in urban settings. Indiscriminate killing of urban wildlife is condemned as unethical as well as
impractical, and lethal control figures as a measure of last resort that must be rationally justified.
Commensal rodents, however, do not benefit from this shift toward coexistence between humans and
nonhuman species. Campaigns to restrict the use of rodenticides are intended to protect carnivores,
not the rodents themselves. Though urban wildlife management is consistent with some elements of
the vision of multispecies flourishing developed by human–animal studies scholars, not all species
benefit equally from this transition, and the legitimacy of wild animals’ claims on shared urban spaces
often remains contingent on their good behavior.
Keywords:
urban wildlife management; human–wildlife coexistence; multispecies flourishing;
human–animal studies
1. Introduction
As U.S. cities continue to invest in green infrastructure, urban environments are becoming more
hospitable to wildlife [
1
]. Yet cities have long been thought to serve primarily human interests,
Animals 2020,10, 1983; doi:10.3390/ani10111983 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Animals 2020,10, 1983 2 of 15
with nonhuman animals (nonhuman animal is the preferred terminology in human–animal studies;
hereafter, we use the term animals) often confined to an existence in the shadows of human spaces [
2
].
As greened cities attract more wild animals, the newcomers tend, over time, to shed their misanthropy
and become more visible to human observers. Greater visibility, however, increases the potential
for conflicts with humans [
3
,
4
]. Moral panics about the unwanted “invaders” abound, along with
demands for their removal or, where that is impossible, for restoration of wild animals’ presumed
natural fear of humans [
5
,
6
]. New imaginaries of urban human–wildlife coexistence are sorely needed,
however [
3
,
7
9
]. To that end, scholars working at the confluence of human–wildlife interactions
research and critical animal studies critique anthropocentric conceptions of cities and question the
eectiveness as well as the ethics of lethal methods of wildlife management [
10
16
]. Eorts to specify
what the “good city” might look like in more-than-human terms demand that humans recognize
nonhuman animals as fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces, claims that
are not provisional, contingent on good behavior [
3
,
9
]. Notwithstanding methodological dierences
among their academic disciplines, philosophers [
17
20
], geographers [
2
,
11
,
21
], planners [
3
,
22
,
23
], and
conservation scientists [
8
,
24
] who theorize multispecies flourishing in urban settings have converged
on a distinction between thin and thick conceptions of nonhuman belonging.
Thin conceptions of coexistence consign humans and animals to their respective material and
symbolic spheres—to “parallel planes” in Michelfelder’s [
19
] terminology—that do not, and are not
meant to, intersect with one another. This minimalist ethic of coexistence between humans and
nonhuman species demands little of humans beyond tolerating urban animals’ presence, provided they
primarily inhabit designated parks and other green spaces without making a nuisance of themselves.
For the most part, humans go about their lives while animals go about theirs, rarely coming into
contact with one another. Thicker conceptions of coexistence ask, more ambitiously, what it means to
merge these parallel planes of existence and to invite forms of interspecies sociability “founded upon a
more robust sense of belonging than mere toleration or just getting along” [
19
]. Here, toleration and
impatience for boundary violations give way to generosity and hospitality founded upon recognition
of mutual entanglement among species. Writing about Australian white ibis who inhabit urban areas,
McKiernan and Instone [
21
] formulate the challenge of thick coexistence as follows: “How do we relate
to the ibis outside a dualistic frame of either pest or victim? How do we transform the usual narrative
of eradication to a story of entangled human–nonhuman neighborliness?”
A formidable barrier to such a reimagining is the persistence of contradictory beliefs about the
place of animals in society [
25
]. While many urban dwellers are excited about sharing their city with
wild animals, others are indierent, annoyed, or afraid, particularly with regard to predators [
26
].
Though many charismatic species (e.g., raptors) are admired [
27
], various abject ones (e.g., rats)
number among countless “unloved others” [
28
,
29
]. That certain polarizing species (e.g., raccoons)
are simultaneously beloved and despised further complicates urban wildlife management [
18
].
Wildlife management, moreover, is for many cities a low priority, carried out by multiple municipal
agencies with conflicting missions and messaging regarding the disposition of wildlife [
30
33
].
Moreover, in wildlife management animals have traditionally appeared as objects of expertise and
targets of intervention, as populations rather than as individuals, and rarely if ever as fellow inhabitants
of multispecies society [
12
]. Mounting empirical evidence against human exceptionalism is challenging
these precepts, however [
34
]. Social mammals, for example, possess sophisticated systems of
communication [
14
] and employ moral norms of fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity that are
intelligible to human observers [
35
,
36
]. Bats talk [
37
], and fish need friends [
38
]. At a minimum,
this transition from ethology to ethnology, rooted in scientific and philosophical advances, opens up
space for exploring multispecies relationalities that do not treat animals as objects. For example,
advocates of “compassionate conservation” seek to nudge wildlife management toward conceptions
of coexistence that take animals’ sentience seriously [
39
41
]. We acknowledge that this transition is
ongoing, partial, and contested. We also note, however, that incorporating respect for animals’ sentience
Animals 2020,10, 1983 3 of 15
into wildlife management practices does not depend on settling ontological claims to everyone’s
satisfaction [24,33].
Thus, we ask to what extent urban wildlife management practices in U.S. cities reflect emerging
conceptions of human–wildlife coexistence that acknowledge wild animals as fellow urban dwellers
with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces [
3
,
9
]. If at least some wild animals have successfully
achieved membership in urban society, has this revaluation aected how urban wildlife is governed?
We pursue this question by analyzing urban wildlife management plans that show a commitment to
peaceful human–wildlife coexistence, and urban rodent control approaches that restrict the use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Our interpretive policy analysis of these management
discourses reveals three themes of coexistence-based urban wildlife management: nonhuman
belonging, lethal management as a last resort, and mutual accommodation.
However, the extent
to which the presence of these ideas in urban wildlife management indicates a meaningful shift from
human–wildlife conflict to peaceful coexistence varies by species and does not, for the most part,
extend to commensal rodents.
2. Materials and Methods
In order to understand how wildlife management practices in U.S. cities may be incorporating
conceptions of multispecies coexistence we analyzed wildlife management and rodent control
policy documents produced by municipal governments, fact sheets published by wildlife advocacy
organizations, and newspaper articles. Our non-probabilistic sampling of these materials was guided by
the study’s aim to understand whether management discourses concerning “unloved others,” such as
urban predators and rodents, are showing signs of turning “the usual narrative of eradication to a story
of entangled human–nonhuman neighbourliness” [
21
]. Thus, we selected urban wildlife management
plans that foreground nonlethal management of predators (mainly coyotes) and rodent control
approaches that prioritize alternatives to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. We selected
twenty-eight documents for analysis—fourteen each on wildlife management and on rodent control
(see Appendix A).
We approached these research materials from the methodological perspective of interpretive
policy analysis. Interpretive policy analysis, rooted in a social constructivist worldview of knowledge
production, presupposes that problems addressed in policymaking have dierent meanings for
dierent groups of people [
42
]. Engagement with these situated meanings, and how those meanings
are enacted, lies at the heart of interpretive policy analysis [
43
]. Thus, we do not ask, for example,
whether wildlife management plans assess coyote behavior “right,” based on scientific knowledge
produced by wildlife biologists and conservation scientists. Rather, we investigate what coyotes,
as rendered in coexistence-friendly urban wildlife management plans, mean to these municipalities
with respect to the animals’ membership (or non-membership) in urban society. Given our analytic
emphasis on meaning-making around human–wildlife coexistence informed by a qualitative research
design, our data are not representative of urban wildlife management in the United States as a whole.
The study’s focus on the western U.S. simply reflects the reality that coyotes have been present in
many western cities for decades, prompting these cities to develop coyote management plans, and that
campaigns to ban second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides have been particularly active and
successful in California.
Using this qualitative–interpretive perspective, we conducted a directed content analysis
of our sample of wildlife management materials [
44
]. Unlike a conventional content analysis,
wherein researchers generate codes directly from the data without the benefit of theory, our directed
content analysis was informed by the conceptions of multispecies coexistence and entangled
human–animal relationalities discussed in the introduction. These theoretical concepts directed
us to examine the data for themes of nonlethal management and of coexistence more generally.
The analysis proceeded in three steps. First, each researcher read all of the documents independently
and identified preliminary themes related to the research question. We then exchanged our notes
Animals 2020,10, 1983 4 of 15
and reviewed each other’s interpretation of the materials. Finally, we jointly discussed our coding
of themes and thus generated a matrix of themes and subthemes regarding coexistence-based urban
wildlife management that we believe best reflects the content of the research materials (Table 1).
Table 1. Coexistence in urban wildlife management.
Themes Subthemes
Nonhuman belonging
Conditional on spatial and behavioral criteria (toleration; selective empathy)
Unconditional (hospitality; expansive empathy)
Native/non-native status
Lethal control as last
resort
Criteria of killability (species; behavior)
Nonlethal strategies (design, teaching and learning, human behavior)
Rodenticide alternatives mostly lethal
Mutual accommodation
Human–wildlife interactions
Normalization
Learning
Coexistence
Conflict management
Visibility/invisibility
3. Results
3.1. Managing Urban Wildlife for Coexistence
3.1.1. Nonhuman Belonging
The urban wildlife management plans we analyzed argue for the desirability of human–wildlife
coexistence. Certain native species—e.g., gophers, opossums—are highlighted for their ecological
significance as prey animals or as predators. More generally, the plans take a firm stand against
eradicating species humans may find troublesome, such as black-tailed prairie dogs in Denver or
raccoons in Chicago. In some parts of the country, acceptance of urban wildlife entails living alongside
predators that occasionally injure or even kill people. For example, the City of Boulder acknowledges
that black bears and mountain lions inhabit areas of the city that provide resources for them and that
“it is not desirable, practical nor feasible to completely eliminate these animals in the urban area” [
45
].
Rather, the city declares that “Boulder is in mountain lion habitat. Therefore, residents must practice
behaviors that accommodate co-existence” [45].
If wild animals, including predators who may pose some risk to humans, cannot and should not be
eliminated from cities, how do cities propose to manage human–wildlife coexistence? Urban wildlife
management plans concede that insofar as wild animals have made their home in urban areas,
humans must learn to live with them—though in cases of serious conflict, the plans caution, human safety
and wellbeing trump the interests of wild animals.
Though wild animals are recognized as making valuable contributions to urban ecosystems,
they are not necessarily welcome in all parts of the city, only some of which are designated as wildlife
habitats. Nor are all species equally welcome—most notably coyotes, native canids increasingly
common in cities across the United States who are frequently the focus of citizens’ anxieties about
living alongside wild animals. Thus, the City of Davis Coyote Management and Coexistence Plan
illustrates what amounts to a zoning code style division of the city into spaces where coyotes belong
and where they do not belong:
Coyotes are considered important members of a healthy ecosystem and should be encouraged to occur
in the city’s open space and habitat areas that exist adjacent to, and outside of, the urban limit
(
e.g., urban/agricultural transition
areas and other city owned open space and habitat areas within
the planning area). Hazing shall not occur within these areas. [46]
Animals 2020,10, 1983 5 of 15
On the one hand, the plan declares that coyotes who inhabit land located on the edge of the city
are not to be disturbed there. That is no small victory, given that many humans have rather mixed
feelings about living alongside coyotes at all. On the other hand, coyotes found in areas of Davis not
defined as “agricultural transition areas and other open space habitat” find themselves on shakier
ground. While there are no plans to evict the animals from “neighborhood or community spaces,”
citizens are asked to take steps to make such areas inhospitable to coyotes, by removing attractants and
hazing. Insofar as coyotes cannot be entirely discouraged from populated areas of the city, tolerating
their presence there is contingent on the animals’ good behavior, defined as showing aversion, if not
fear, of humans and refraining from aggression toward humans and their pets. Humans, in this
management scheme, are responsible for “keeping coyotes in their community wild” by teaching
coyotes the rules of “active coexistence” based on spatial zones of belonging and not belonging, on the
assumption that coyotes—intelligent social mammals—are capable of learning and observing rules of
social interaction with humans [46].
Chicago’s Wildlife Management and Coexistence Plan takes a different approach.
Here, managers reject
zones of spatial separation and policing of habitat boundaries in favor of emphasizing improvement of
habitat connectivity as a means to reduce fragmentation and to discourage wildlife from inhabiting “highly
residential and densely populated urban areas.” This spatially more fluid conception of nonhuman
belonging acknowledges the reality of wild animals moving freely around the city in search of resources
and, moreover, does not depend on the widespread participation of citizens in eorts to deter animals
from residential areas. Rather, Chicago envisions that urban planning and design can facilitate
the movement of wild animals within and between habitats in ways that reduce the potential for
human–wildlife conflict [47].
3.1.2. Nonlethal Management
The urban wildlife management plans in our sample reject the indiscriminate killing of urban wild
animals on ethical and practical grounds, framing the taking of an animal’s life as an option of last resort
that requires rational justification. Thus, Denver ’s coyote management plan emphasizes “preventative
measures and nonlethal controls. Lethal measures are taken only as a last resort” [
48
], as when an
identifiable coyote is involved in “fairly serious aggressive interactions with humans” [
45
]. Culling is
not considered an acceptable management strategy for coyotes. Ideally, “only specific animals may be
targeted and general culling may not occur since removing a group of territorial coyotes will create an
undefended area into which transient coyotes will flow” [
49
]. Davis, California will not use city funds
“to trap and kill coyotes, unless there is a clear and imminent public safety threat” [46].
Though endorsing nonlethal management as the preferred approach signals that wild animals,
including native predators such as coyotes, are valued members of the urban community, individual
animals remain killable under certain conditions. The decision to take a coyote’s life turns on what
counts as evidence of an “individual aggressive coyote,” “fairly serious aggression,” and so on. Here the
plans seek to subject management responses, including life-and-death decisions, to transparent criteria
for diagnosing abnormal behavior and weighing risks to public safety accordingly. Corresponding to
types of behavior and levels of risk is a set of tiered responses including “public education, outreach
community meetings, hazing, and lethal control as a last resort if there is a dangerous coyote or a
public safety risk” [
50
]. Generalized fear of predators and threat perceptions associated with the
animals’ mere presence in an area and with their normal behaviors are typically addressed with public
education and community outreach. At the other end of the spectrum—attacks on humans—a lethal
response may be required [
50
]. Identifying risks associated with encounters that humans experience as
ambiguous—e.g., when coyotes patrolling their territory are perceived as following humans—is more
challenging. To that end, management plans rely on a decision matrix that combines judgments about
the type of coyote behavior and, for lack of a better term, the vibe of an encounter to determine whether
a management response is warranted and, if so, which one.
Animals 2020,10, 1983 6 of 15
Colorado cities, for example, seek to classify normal, habituated, and dangerous coyote behavior.
The presence of coyotes in and coyotes passing through developed areas are considered normal
behaviors in Colorado’s Front Range and do not warrant a response, though hazing of coyotes in
developed areas is encouraged “to re-instill a fear of humans” [
50
]. Habituated behaviors are more
troubling, as when a coyote’s “behavior exhibits little wariness of the presence of people and the coyote
is comfortable passing frequently though developed areas” or when a coyote “frequently predates on
unattended cats and dogs or other domesticated animals” [
50
]. Dangerous behavior occurs when a
coyote attacks a human or, short of that, bares teeth, lunges, nips at clothing, or growls at a human(s)
and/or poses a significant threat to human safety.
3.1.3. Mutual Accommodation
Strategies to facilitate the mutual accommodation of humans and wild animals in urban spaces
focus on normalizing human–wildlife interactions that are typically unproblematic while preventing
(or managing) interactions that might endanger public safety. Normalization starts from the assumption
that wild animals seek out urban areas for reasons that make sense to them (e.g., availability of shelter
and food). Normalization also involves educating citizens about why animals might be attracted to
an area and explaining that routine behaviors, such as patrolling territory, pose little risk to humans.
In addition to furnishing basic information about wildlife biology and ecology, normalization entails
combating unrealistic expectations and dispelling common myths, such as reminders that daytime
sightings of raccoons or foxes are perfectly normal and very rarely a cause for alarm. To the contrary,
human enjoyment of wildlife is widely cited as one of the reasons for cultivating an urban wildlife
habitat in the first place. The Colorado City of Broomfield, for example, seeks “to foster an appreciation
and enjoyment of local wildlife” [
50
]. Perhaps most notably, thriving colonies of Brazilian free-tailed
bats in Austin, Texas have acquired the status of a spectacular urban wildlife viewing attraction that is
heavily promoted by the city and draws thousands of visitors every year [51].
With respect to occasionally troublesome species such as coyotes or black bears, public education
and outreach initiatives invoke notions of “active” or “educated” coexistence that emphasize teaching
humans and animals how to behave around one another [
45
50
]. Humans are encouraged or required
to remove wildlife attractants from their properties (e.g., picking up fallen fruit, storing trash in
bear-resistant containers) and to practice hazing techniques that teach animals to fear humans and thus
prevent habituation. Though maintaining parallel planes may be unrealistic in more populated urban
areas, the behavioral norms associated with active coexistence are designed to accommodate the needs
of humans and nonhuman species by minimizing interspecies contact, or at least the most harmful
interactions. Humans and wild animals may inhabit the same spaces, but the goal of management is for
their activities to overlap as little as possible in order to minimize the potential for conflicts. Interactions
that go beyond observation from a distance are strongly discouraged. The interspecies distancing
involved here is not just spatial in nature, but also rules out many typically harmless social interactions
between humans and wild animals that might routinely occur in residential areas. Animals in particular
are to be discouraged from taking too much of an interest in their human neighbors. In fact, being too
friendly toward people is equated with habituation, and may prompt wildlife ocials to take action,
such as stepping up hazing eorts or community outreach. Policing and maintaining boundaries
between humans and wild predators remains the backbone of active coexistence as envisioned by
urban wildlife management plans.
3.2. Rodent Control and Banning Rodenticides
3.2.1. Nonhuman Belonging
Rats are not welcome in human spaces. Recently, however, there has been a growing shift
in thinking about rodenticides, particularly in the western United States [
52
,
53
]. Conservation
biologists have linked the deaths of many wild predators, including mountain lions, cougars, coyotes,
Animals 2020,10, 1983 7 of 15
owls and other birds of prey, to second-generation rodenticides through biomagnification [
54
,
55
].
While carnivores do not consume rodenticides from bait boxes directly, they consume the rodents who
have ingested the poison, thus poisoning themselves. Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides
do not take eect immediately, meaning rats can repeatedly return to the bait box and ingest
significantly more than one fatal dose of poison before death occurs. There have also been thousands
of reported cases of poisons aecting pets and children [
56
,
57
]. The movement to ban rodenticides
to prevent unintentional poisonings began in California. In 2014, the state restricted the sale and
use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides to licensed exterminators and to farmers [
58
].
Malibu, Moorpark,
Thousand Oaks and other California cities expanded these restrictions and stopped
using anticoagulant rodenticides in city-owned spaces [
59
]. In September 2020, the State of California
banned the sale and use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, with few exceptions.
There has been much backlash and disagreement over the decisions to move away from rodenticides,
as rats remain prevalent in many urban areas. Known to live in unsanitary spaces and carry diseases
such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), typhus, and hantavirus, among others,
many see the presence of rats as a threat to public health [
60
,
61
]. Many city ocials do not believe that
it is feasible to stop killing rats, especially in areas with persistent rat problems. Ocials recognize,
however, that there are many eective alternative methods of rodent control, including snap traps,
improving sanitation, and exclusion measures that prevent rodents from entering a property in the
first place [57,62].
Policies to exclude rats from human spaces can be linked to the generally low tolerance levels
society has towards the species. Many other species, such as birds and squirrels, are welcome urban
dwellers. To say that rats are not granted the same consideration of multispecies belonging in urban
environments would be an understatement. There is very little tolerance for coexisting with rats in
shared urban spaces [
60
,
62
]. The behaviors and characteristics of rats do not align with the expected
behaviors and characteristics humans place on their wild neighbors [
61
]. Rats are not tolerated,
and even mere signs of their activity, such as droppings or burrows, are met with disdain, fear,
and anger [
62
,
63
]. The reality that rats are one of the most abundant species of wildlife found in urban
areas does not temper the abjection that evidence of their presence provokes in many humans.
Rats have been associated with disease for thousands of years, and this association has trained
humans to try to eradicate rats at all costs to avoid disease [
61
]. That rat populations bounce back quickly
in the wake of eradication campaigns goes more or less unacknowledged [
63
]. Increased sightings of
rats in parks and other outdoor spaces create moral panics. Urban rat infestations are regular fodder
for local and national news, with spikes in sightings creating public relations nightmares for sanitation
departments, health departments, visitor bureaus, and elected ocials [
60
]. Even as increasingly more
studies demonstrate the intelligence and emotional range of rats, empathy with rats remains in short
supply and their status as pest animals is not up for debate [
61
]. Support for the idea that rats belong in
cities is absent from the anti-rodenticide campaign materials we have analyzed. Though ever present,
rats never belong in human spaces.
3.2.2. Nonlethal Management
In September 2020, California became the first U.S. state to ban second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides. The law provides for some exemptions (e.g., medical facilities, slaughterhouses),
but second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides may no longer be used in restaurants, grocery stores,
homes, housing facilities, schools, and oce buildings [
64
]. Rats may still be killed in many other ways,
using snap traps, carbon dioxide asphyxiation, and first-generation rodenticides. Non-toxic alternatives,
however, are also part of the debate about how best to control rat populations.
Suggested nonlethal alternatives to rodenticides focus on prevention of rodent infestations
before they can occur. Exclusion, the practice of ensuring that any and all possible entrances to
a property are sealed to prevent rats from entering the building, is one of the most frequently
recommended nonlethal solutions [
59
,
61
,
65
,
66
]. Another is to improve sanitation in urban areas in
Animals 2020,10, 1983 8 of 15
order to reduce rats’ access to food waste [
60
,
61
,
66
]. Ensuring trash is stored securely and nearby
areas remain clean from food waste and potential shelters deters rats from occupying these spaces.
Rats are intelligent and highly adaptive to environmental changes [
61
]. When humans create an
environment that allows rats to thrive, rats will very quickly adjust to the conditions and make
themselves at home. Following this logic, creating a less hospitable environment by disposing of food
properly and securing trash until it is time to be picked up should discourage rats from inhabiting an
area [
61
].
However, integrated pest
management—combining non-toxic techniques such as sanitation,
rodent-proofing, etc.—for commensal rodents is not well-studied, and existing evidence is mixed [
67
].
Most of the nonlethal methods of control are preventative measures to reduce the likelihood that
rats will be attracted to certain locations. The one nonlethal method that can be utilized after rats have
moved into an area is the application of contraceptives to reduce fertility in future generations [
61
,
63
].
Most nonlethal methods, however, are not very eective if rats are already occupying the locations
where they are not wanted, which is when people tend to notice them and search for ways to eliminate
of them. People tend to not think about the existence of rats until they notice the signs of their
presence, by which time it is too late for preventive measures. This is when they turn to lethal methods
to eliminate them, which are widely available and socially acceptable [
67
]. Thus, controlling rat
populations still mostly involves killing rats.
Raptors Are The Solution (RATS), a California-based advocacy organization, is campaigning
for the use of birds of prey as a natural and ecologically sound lethal solution to rodent infestations.
Raptors naturally prey on rats, and encouraging owls and hawks to live in urban areas near rodent
populations can reduce the number of rats without the need for poison. RATS encourages the use of
owl nesting boxes to lure these raptors to the area for natural pest control as they are ecient killers of
rats [
54
]. The use of birds of prey as rodent management promotes a solution that is not only non-toxic,
but also benefits the urban ecology by stimulating the circle of life. Rodents are still killed through this
method, but not at the hands of humans, and to the mutual benefit of raptors and humans. Not only
does the endorsement of raptors provide a solution for rodent management, but humans also benefit
from seeing desirable wildlife in their neighborhoods they might not see otherwise.
3.2.3. Mutual Accommodation
Rodenticides and other uses of lethal control may not be the perfect solutions for dealing with urban
rats, but they do not require much human input or eort [
67
]. Many of the nonlethal alternatives do,
a fact that proponents of non-toxic alternatives both acknowledge and seek to address. Rats, adaptive
as they are, thrive by learning from human behaviors [
61
]. For example, if humans continuously leave
trash in an accessible place such as an unsecured dumpster, rats will learn that that dumpster will be a
steady source of food. In turn, humans can learn to modify their behaviors to discourage rats from
occupying spaces where they are unwanted. Humans can learn how to properly exclude rats from
buildings, how to store trash to deny rats access, and how to safely manage rats that have bypassed
their eorts and entered their property without harming other wildlife or risking the safety of pets
and children [
56
,
65
,
66
]. Sanitation and exclusion deter rats from entering human-occupied spaces in
the first place, and a focus on these methods can aid in reducing the amount of poison that enters the
ecosystem. Educating people by showing them that they have the power to control rat populations by
making adjustments to their own behavior can pave the way for both humans and rats to learn to live
in urban environments together with minimal conflict.
Our reading of municipal rodenticide bans and campaign materials shows, however, that the form
of peaceful coexistence being contemplated here is very thin. Mutual accommodation with urban rats
seems to depend, on the one hand, on recognition of the inevitability of their presence and, on the other
hand, on their exclusion, to the extent possible, from spaces where they pose actual risks to human
health. Cities are not always the cleanest locations, which allows rats to thrive by feeding on trash
and hiding in every nook and cranny. It is simply not possible to eliminate every source of food and
shelter for rats in cities, and therefore, rats are not going to leave anytime soon [
60
,
62
]. Despite their
Animals 2020,10, 1983 9 of 15
inevitable presence, however, people actually do not come into conflict with urban rats until they
notice signs of their occupancy, such as droppings or chew marks [
61
]. People tend not to care about
rats’ general existence so long as they do not become visible. Therefore, the key to normalizing rats as
urban wildlife may be to ensure they remain invisible. This can be accomplished by teaching humans
to do their part to prevent and deter rats from residing in an area where they would thrive, reproduce,
and become visible. For the time being, an uneasy truce based on parallel planes of existence may be
the best commensal rodents can hope for.
4. Discussion
Our results indicate that urban wildlife management practices are tentatively shifting toward
coexistence, though not for all species. This shift also falls short of single plane conceptions of
multispecies flourishing. Remarkably, some cities are learning to tolerate and even welcome wild
predators, such as coyotes. Alternatively, rats are barely tolerated, if at all. Moreover, the conceptions of
nonhuman belonging that animate urban wildlife management discourse remain indebted to the conflict
prevention management paradigm, and thus attached primarily to thin rather than thick conceptions of
multispecies coexistence. On the one hand, certain species are believed to be capable of learning how to
be good neighbors to humans, provided humans are prepared to uphold certain rules of engagement.
On the other hand, very little in the way of actual interspecies entanglement is tolerated in the wildlife
management materials we have analyzed. Even with species welcome as fellow urban dwellers,
policing intra-urban habitat boundaries and attending to conflict prevention remain central pillars of
managing for what is termed “active” or “educated” coexistence. Humans are encouraged to appreciate
the wild animals with whom they share yards, streets, and neighborhoods, both for their beauty and
for their contribution to biodiversity—but only from a distance. More intimate forms of interspecies
sociability, such as provisioning or play, are emphatically discouraged. If there is human–nonhuman
neighborliness here, it is contingent, at risk whenever humans’ and animals’ indierence and wariness
toward the other begins to waver. The consequences of trespassing onto one another ’s plane of existence
are not shared equally by humans and nonhuman species, however. Showing too much aggression
can be just as dangerous to an animal’s wellbeing as being too friendly, an impossible bind that mirrors
the dynamics of social exclusion and othering experienced by marginalized human communities [
68
].
These systems of power and injustice have attracted increased scrutiny from theorists of multispecies
justice [69].
However, we found some recognition in these wildlife management practices of more entangled
multispecies relationalities, particularly an emerging acceptance of wild animals’ apparent disregard
for intra-urban habitat boundaries. Simply put, some urban wildlife management plans divide the city
into suitable and unsuitable wildlife habitats. The reality is less clear-cut, of course, in that the spatially
complex tapestry of sparsely developed wildlands, neighborhood parks, cemeteries, golf courses,
road verges, railroad corridors, and residential yards found in many cities provides perfectly good
habitats for all sorts of wild animals. Chicago’s conception of nonhuman belonging retains the idea
that residential areas are inappropriate as wildlife habitats because they multiply risks for humans and
animals alike. However, the city’s commitment to improving urban green spaces to make these areas
more accessible to animals via the construction of green infrastructure such as wildlife corridors at
least gestures at a more equitable sharing of urban spaces by humans and wild animals. Such more
realistic assessments of the fluid nature of how nonhuman species actually inhabit urban spaces are
a key step toward relinquishing the idea that urban wild animals ought somehow to be confined to
designated green spaces and, thus, toward embracing thick conceptions of multispecies coexistence.
Alongside messaging that culling urban coyotes is counterproductive from a risk management
perspective, typologies of coyote behaviors seek to subject management interventions to rational
examination. The narrative of eradication may have faded from view, but individual animals may still
be killed under certain conditions. Coyotes, for example, may be killed following incidents of serious
aggression, such as attacks on humans (and on leashed pets), but they may not be killed simply for
Animals 2020,10, 1983 10 of 15
being coyotes. Surely this makes a dierence. Granted, attempts to label various coyote behaviors
as normal, habituated, and dangerous are inevitably reductive and do not always oer a clear-cut
answer in specific instances of conflict, e.g., as when a coyote charges a dog while defending a den
site. However, such typologies place many routine coyote behaviors squarely beyond the reach of
management interventions, including some that many people may find disturbing, such as coyotes
making themselves visible when patrolling their territories or coyotes preying on free-roaming cats.
Few if any of these considerations are aorded to urban rats. We found few armations of
belonging, nonlethality, and mutual accommodation concerning commensal rodents. While coyotes,
black bears, and even mountain lions—though certainly polarizing—are increasingly welcome as urban
dwellers, rats are not. It is dicult even to conceive of ways of living peaceably alongside rats that are
predicated on tolerating—let alone enhancing—rats’ visibility, ideas that quite simply do not figure
in the rodenticide ban campaign materials and city websites we have analyzed. Other coexistence
campaigns are moving away from culling, as less lethal options to manage human–wildlife relations
are explored. Rats, however, remain undesirable wild neighbors and their lives disposable. Even if
rodenticide bans were to become more widespread, other methods of lethal control would remain
available. Managing the animals out of existence is no less an option for rats than it is for coyotes,
however. Rats are incredibly intelligent and attuned to human habits, and these traits mean they will
continuously adapt to changing urban environments and never completely disappear despite humans’
best eorts [61,62]. Perhaps, then, if rats were to be accepted as unavoidable inhabitants of the urban
ecosystem, their presence might trigger fewer attempts to poison them and, indirectly, the predators
who prey on rats. The RATS campaign arguably at least points in that direction insofar as harnessing
raptors as nature’s pest control brigade normalizes rats as ecologically valuable prey animals.
5. Conclusions
The evolution of thick and thin conceptions of nonhuman belonging in urban wildlife management
varies depending on which species are sharing urban spaces with humans. Some charismatic species
are in the process of thickening their membership in urban societies to the point where they enjoy full
access to some urban spaces, and provisional access to others. While these species are adjusting to
living alongside humans, humans are learning how to coexist with their new neighbors. Urban wild
animals are still expected to abide by the rules and boundaries set by people, but even for species as
polarizing as coyotes mere tolerance is giving way to something like an invitation to share designated
green spaces with humans [
70
]. Rats, on the other hand, are barely touched even by thin conceptions
of belonging in human spaces. Rather, rats do not belong in urban spaces at all, even in those locations
where other wild animals are usually allowed to thrive, such as public parks. For the time being,
rats remain firmly encoded as pests to be eradicated, albeit by ecologically more benign methods.
That said, few people who came of age in the industrial cities of the mid-20th century could
have imagined that these same cities would in just a few decades attract species of wildlife that then
inhabited primarily rural landscapes, beyond the walls of the polis. The blurring of human–wildlife
boundaries is a work-in-progress, with no self-evident endpoint. Not all species are welcome in
cities, but those that are have enhanced not only urban biodiversity but also the meaning of cities.
If nothing else, deemphasizing lethal force to regulate urban wildlife populations concedes that
cities are not exclusively human spaces, but (however provisionally) spaces for wild animals too.
As the size and the diversity of urban wildlife populations continue to grow, a shift toward thicker
conceptions of nonhuman belonging that deemphasizes the policing of spatial boundaries between
human and nonhuman spaces in favor of recognizing manifold human–nonhuman entanglements
in shared spaces is certainly desirable. There is no guarantee, of course, that such new imaginaries
of coexistence will prevail, that narratives of eradication will keep being transformed into stories of
neighborliness, least of all for those “unloved others” for whom even mere toleration remains presently
out of reach. The dynamics of the urban multispecies society emerging from the push and pull of
fear and acceptance, of resentment and hospitality merits further research. To that end, proposals to
Animals 2020,10, 1983 11 of 15
replace the conflict-prevention paradigm with a conflict-to-coexistence continuum that is less quick to
cast wild animals as troublemakers who bear the brunt of responsibility for negative human–wildlife
interactions represent a promising step toward thicker of multispecies flourishing [71].
Author Contributions:
C.H. and M.M. are jointly responsible for the conceptualization of the research question
and for the analysis and interpretation of the research materials. Both authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Morgan Sarao for her research assistance.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Urban Wildlife Management Documents:
Project Coyote. Dogs and coyotes. Available online: http://www.projectcoyote.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/08/Dogs_Coyotes.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Project Coyote. Informational brochure. Available online: http://www.projectcoyote.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/02/PC_brochure.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Project Coyote. Coexisting with coyotes brochure. Available online: http://www.projectcoyote.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/Coexisting_Brochure_oct2015.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Project Coyote. Denver’s coyotes learn to live with human neighbors. Available online: http:
//www.projectcoyote.org/foxdenver.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation. Brazilian free-tailed bats—Congress Avenue Bridge bat colony.
Available online: https://www.austinbats.org/bats (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Austin Bat Refuge. Don’t blame bats. Available online: https://austinbatrefuge.org/covid-19/#
(accessed on 1 October 2020).
Staord Mader, L. Coexisting with the coyotes of Travis County: Austin’s wildlife management
program goes countywide. Available online: https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2019-02-22/
coexisting-with-the-coyotes-of-travis-county/(accessed on 1 October 2020).
City of Boulder, CO. Urban wildlife management plan. Available online: https://bouldercolorado.gov/
wildlife/urban-wildlife-management-plan (accessed on 1 October 2020).
City of Denver, CO. Avoiding conflicts with wildlife in the city. Available online:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/747/documents/Natural_Areas/wildlife/
wildlife-conflict-info.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
City of Denver, CO. Coyote management plan. Available online: https://www.mspca.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/08/denver-coyote-management-plan.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
City and County of Broomfield, CO. Coexistence with wildlife policy. Available online:
https://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/1392/CoexistencePolicyFinal?bidId=(accessed on
1 October 2020).
City of Davis, CA. Coyote management and coexistence plan. Available online: https://www.cityofdavis.
org/home/showdocument?id=2896 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
City of Chicago, IL. Wildlife management and coexistence plan. Available online: https://www.chicago.
gov/content/dam/city/depts/cacc/PDFiles/Chicago_WIldlife_Plan_FINAL_8.9.19.pdf (accessed on
1 October 2020).
City of Lake Forest Park, WA. Accepted wildlife management plan. Available online: https://www.
cityoflfp.com/DocumentCenter/View/487/Wildlife-Management-Plan---4-6-12-3?bidId=(accessed on
1 October 2020).
Rodent Control Documents
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Rodenticides. Available online: https://wildlife.ca.gov/
Living-with-Wildlife/Rodenticides (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Animals 2020,10, 1983 12 of 15
City of Davis, CA. Rodenticide Hazards. Available online: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/urban-
wildlife/rodenticide-hazards (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Cudmore, B. A New Approach to Oregon’s Growing Rat Problem. Available online: https://www.nrdc.
org/stories/new-approach-oregons-growing-rat-problem (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Malibu, California. Rodent Control & the Environment. Available online: https://www.malibucity.org/
750/Rodent-Control-the-Environment (accessed on 1 October 2020).
McFadden, D. Pest Control: Exclusion Is the Most Powerful Weapon. Available online: https://www.
foodqualityandsafety.com/article/exclusion-pest-control/?singlepage=1(accessed on 1 October 2020).
Moorpark, CA. Anticoagulant rodenticides. Available online: http://www.moorparkca.gov/579/
Anticoagulant-Rodenticides (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Parsons, M. H., & Munshi-South, J. Better rat control in cities starts by changing human behavior.
Available online: https://theconversation.com/better-rat-control-in-cities-starts-by-changing-human-
behavior-129232 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Poison Free Malibu. Rodents. Available online: https://poisonfreemalibu.org/rodents/(accessed on
1 October 2020).
Raptors Are The Solution. RATS Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.raptorsarethesolution.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/10/RATS-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Raptors Are The Solution. RATS Brochure. Available online: https://www.raptorsarethesolution.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/06/RATS_brochure_2018_HomePrint.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Richardson, J. Super rats or sickly rodents? Our war against urban rats could be leading to swift
evolutionary changes. Available online: https://theconversation.com/super-rats-or-sickly-rodents-
our-war-against-urban-rats-could-be-leading-to-swift-evolutionary-changes-125902 (accessed on
1 October 2020).
Sabalow, R. & Reese, P. As rats overrun California cities, state moves to ban powerful pest-killers.
Available online: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article232687952.html (accessed on
1 October 2020).
Serieys, L. Why Do Poisons Matter? Available online: http://www.urbancarnivores.com/poisons/
(accessed on 1 October 2020).
Williams, T. Poisons Used to Kill Rodents Have Safer Alternatives. Available online: https:
//www.audubon.org/magazine/january-february-2013/poisons-used-kill-rodents-have-safer (accessed
on 1 October 2020).
References
1.
Aronson, M.F.; Lepczych, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T.
Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2017
,15,
189–196. [CrossRef]
2.
Hinchlie, S.; Whatmore, S. Living cities: Towards a politics of conviviality. Sci. Cult.
2006
,15, 123–138.
[CrossRef]
3.
Houston, D.; Hillier, J.; MacCallum, D.; Steele, W. Make kin, not cities! Multispecies entanglements and
‘becoming-world’ in planning theory. Plan. Theory 2018,17, 190–212. [CrossRef]
4.
Hunold, C. Green infrastructure and urban wildlife: Toward a politics of sight. Humanimalia
2019
,11, 89–108.
5.
Bonnell, M.A.; Breck, S.W. Using resident-based hazing programs to reduce human-coyote conflicts in urban
environments. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 2017,11, 146–155. [CrossRef]
6.
Lennox, R.J.; Gallagher, A.J.; Ritchie, E.G.; Cooke, S.J. Evaluating the ecacy of predator removal in a
conflict-prone world. Biol. Conserv. 2018,224, 277–289. [CrossRef]
7.
Beatley, T.; Beko, M. City planning and animals: Expanding our urban compassion footprint. In Ethics,
Design and Planning of the Built Environment; Basta, C., Moroni, S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
pp. 185–195.
Animals 2020,10, 1983 13 of 15
8.
Frank, B.; Glikman, J.A. Human-wildlife conflicts and the need to include coexistence. In Human-Wildlife
Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence; Frank, B., Glikman, J.A., Marchini, S., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 1–19.
9.
Steele, W.; Wiesel, I.; Maller, C. More-than-human cities: Where the wild things are. Geoforum
2019
,106,
411–415. [CrossRef]
10.
Bergstrom, B.J. Carnivore conservation: Shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence. J. Mammal.
2017
,
98, 1–6. [CrossRef]
11.
Collard, R.-C.; Gillespie, K. Doing critical animal geographies: Future directions. In Critical Animal Geographies:
Politics, Intersections and Hierarchies in a Multispecies World; Collard, R.-C., Gillespie, K., Eds.; Routledge:
London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 203–212.
12.
Frank, B. Human-Wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory
comment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2016,29, 738–743. [CrossRef]
13. Hadidian, J. Wildlife in U.S. cities: Managing unwanted animals. Animals 2015,5, 1092–1113. [CrossRef]
14.
Meijer, E. When Animals Speak: Toward an Interspecies Democracy; New York University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2019.
15.
Nyhus, P.J. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
2016
,41, 143–171.
[CrossRef]
16.
Soulsbury, C.D.; White, P.C.L. Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: A review of conflicts, benefits and
opportunities. Wildl. Res. 2015,42, 541–553. [CrossRef]
17.
Gruen, L. Entangled Empathy: An Alternate Ethic for Our Relationships with Animals; Lantern: New York, NY,
USA, 2015.
18.
Luther, E. Tales of cruelty and belonging: In search of an ethic for urban human-wildlife relations.
Anim. Stud. J. 2013,2, 35–54.
19.
Michelfelder, D.P. Urban wildlife ethics: Beyond “parallel planes”. Environ. Ethics
2018
,40, 101–117.
[CrossRef]
20.
Wright, K. An ethics of entanglement for the Anthropocene. Scan J. Media Arts Cult.
2014
,11. Available online:
http://scan.net.au/scn/journal/vol11number1/Kate-Wright.html (accessed on 1 October 2020).
21.
McKiernan, S.; Instone, L. From pest to partner: Rethinking the Australian White Ibis in the more-than-human
city. Cult. Geogr. 2016,23, 475–494. [CrossRef]
22.
Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Springer: New York, NY,
USA, 2011.
23. Wolch, J.R. Anima urbis. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2002,26, 721–742. [CrossRef]
24.
Boonman-Berson, S.; Turnhout, E.; Carolan, M. Common-sensing: Human-black bear cohabitation practices
in Colorado. Geoforum 2016,74, 192–201. [CrossRef]
25.
Emel, J.; Wolch, J. Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands; Verso:
London, UK, 1998.
26.
Elliot, E.E.; Vallance, S.; Molles, L.E. Coexisting with coyotes (Canis latrans) in an urban environment. Urban
Ecosyst. 2016,19, 1335–1350. [CrossRef]
27.
Hunold, C. Why not the city? Urban hawk watching and the end of nature. Nat. Cult.
2017
,12, 115–136.
[CrossRef]
28.
Biehler, D.D. Pests in the City: Flies, Bedbugs, Cockroaches, and Rats; University of Washington Press: Seattle,
WA, USA, 2013.
29. van Dooren, T.; Rose, D.B. Storied-places in a multispecies city. Humanimalia 2012,3, 1–27.
30.
Adams, C.E.; Lindsey, K.J. Urban Wildlife Management, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 2010.
31.
Johnston, J. Incongruous killing: Cats, nonhuman resistance, and precarious life beyond biopolitical
techniques of making-live. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 2019. [CrossRef]
32.
Kirkpatrick, J.F.; Turner, J.W. Urban deer contraception: The seven stages of grief. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
1997
,
25, 515–519.
33.
McCance, E.C.; Decker, D.J.; Colturi, A.M.; Baydack, R.K.; Siemer, W.F.; Curtis, P.D.; Eason, T. Importance of
urban wildlife management in the United States and Canada. Mammal Study 2017,42, 1–16. [CrossRef]
34.
De Waal, F. Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY,
USA, 2017.
Animals 2020,10, 1983 14 of 15
35. Beko, M.; Pierce, J. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals; Chicago University Press: Chicago, USA, 2009.
36. Rowlands, M. Can Animals Be Moral? Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012.
37.
Prat, Y.; Taub, M.; Yovel, Y. Everyday bat vocalizations contain information about emitter, addressee, context,
and behavior. Sci. Rep. 2016,6, 39419. [CrossRef]
38.
Oliveira, R.F.; Simoes, J.M.; Teles, M.C.; Oliveira, C.R.; Becker, J.D.; Lopes, J.S. Assessment of fight outcome is
needed to activate socially driven transcriptional changes in the zebrafish brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2016,113, E654–E661. [CrossRef]
39.
Beko, M.; Pierce, J. The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age; Beacon Press:
Boston, MA, USA, 2017.
40.
Fraser-Celin, V.-L.; Hovorka, A.J. Compassionate conservation: Exploring the lives of African wild dogs
(Lycaon pictus) in Botswana. Animals 2019,9, 16. [CrossRef]
41.
Wallach, A.D.; Batavia, C.; Beko, M.; Alexander, S.; Baker, L.; Ben-Ami, D.; Boronyak, L.; Cardilin, A.P.;
Carmel, Y.; Celermajer, D.; et al. Recognizing animal personhood in compassionate conservation. Conserv. Biol.
2020,34, 1097–1106. [CrossRef]
42.
Yanow, D. Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory,
Politics, and Methods; Fischer, F., Miller, G.J., Sidney, M.S., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London,
UK; New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 405–415.
43.
Schwartz-Shea, P.; Yanow, D. Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2011.
44.
Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to content analysis. Qual. Health Res.
2005
,15, 1277–1288.
[CrossRef]
45.
City of Boulder Urban Wildlife Management Plan. Available online: https://bouldercolorado.gov/wildlife/
urban-wildlife-management-plan (accessed on 1 October 2020).
46.
City of Davis Coyote Management and Coexistence Plan. Available online: https://www.cityofdavis.org/
home/showdocument?id=2896 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
47.
City of Chicago Wildlife Management and Coexistence Plan. Available online: https://www.chicago.gov/
content/dam/city/depts/cacc/PDFiles/Chicago_WIldlife_Plan_FINAL_8.9.19.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
48.
City of Denver Coyote Management Plan. Available online: https://www.mspca.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/08/denver-coyote-management-plan.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
49.
City of Lake Forest Park Accepted Wildlife Management Plan. Available online: https://www.cityoflfp.com/
DocumentCenter/View/487/Wildlife-Management-Plan---4-6-12-3?bidId=(accessed on 1 October 2020).
50.
City and County of Broomfield Coexistence with Wildlife Policy. Available online: https://www.broomfield.
org/DocumentCenter/View/1392/CoexistencePolicyFinal?bidId=(accessed on 1 October 2020).
51.
Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation. Brazilian Free-Tailed Bats—Congress Avenue Bridge Bat Colony.
Available online: https://www.austinbats.org/bats (accessed on 1 October 2020).
52.
City of Davis Rodenticide hazards. Available online: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/urban-wildlife/
rodenticide-hazards (accessed on 1 October 2020).
53.
City of Malibu, CA. (n.d.). Rodent Control & the Environment. Available online: https://www.malibucity.
org/750/Rodent-Control-the- Environment (accessed on 1 October 2020).
54.
RATS Brochure. Available online: https://www.raptorsarethesolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
RATS_brochure_2018_HomePrint.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
55.
Serieys, L. Why do Poisons Matter? Available online: http://www.urbancarnivores.com/poisons/(accessed on
1 October 2020).
56.
RATS Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.raptorsarethesolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
RATS-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2020).
57.
Williams, T. Poisons Used to Kill Rodents Have Safer Alternatives. 2013. Available online:
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/january-february-2013/poisons-used-kill-rodents-have-safer
(accessed on 1 October 2020).
58.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Rodenticides. Available online: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Living-
with-Wildlife/Rodenticides (accessed on 1 October 2020).
59.
City of Moorpark. Anticoagulant Rodenticides. Available online: http://www.moorparkca.gov/579/
Anticoagulant-Rodenticides (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Animals 2020,10, 1983 15 of 15
60.
Sabalow, R.; Reese, P. As Rats Overrun California Cities, State Moves to Ban Powerful Pest-Killers.
Available online: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article232687952.html (accessed on
1 October 2020).
61.
Parsons, M.H.; Munshi-South, J. Better Rat Control in Cities Starts by Changing Human Behavior.
Available online: https://theconversation.com/better-rat-control-in-cities-starts-by-changing-human-
behavior-129232 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
62.
Cudmore, B. A New Approach to Oregon’s Growing Rat Problem. Available online: https://www.nrdc.org/
stories/new-approach-oregons-growing-rat-problem (accessed on 1 October 2020).
63.
Richardson, J. Super Rats or Sickly Rodents? Our War Against Urban Rats Could Be Leading to Swift
Evolutionary Changes. Available online: https://theconversation.com/super-rats-or-sickly-rodents-our-war-
against-urban-rats-could-be-leading-to-swift-evolutionary-changes-125902 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
64.
Sofranec, D. California Law Bans Rodenticide Use, with Exceptions. Pest Management Professional.
29 September 2020. Available online: https://www.mypmp.net/2020/09/29/california-law-bans-use-of-
rodenticides/(accessed on 1 October 2020).
65.
McFadden, D. Pest Control: Exclusion Is the Most Powerful Weapon. Available online: https://www.
foodqualityandsafety.com/article/exclusion-pest-control/?singlepage=1(accessed on 1 October 2020).
66.
Poison Free Malibu. Rodents. Available online: https://poisonfreemalibu.org/rodents/(
accessed on
1 October 2020).
67.
Quinn, N.; Kenmuir, S.; Krueger, L. A California without Rodenticides: Challenges for Commensal Rodent
Management in the Future. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 2019,13, 212–225. [CrossRef]
68.
Kim, C.J. Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2015.
69.
Celermajer, D.; Chatterjee, S.; Cochrane, A.; Fishel, S.; Neimanis, A.; O’Brien, A.; Reid, S.; Srinivasan, K.;
Schlosberg, D.; Waldow, A. Justice through a multispecies lens. Contemp. Political Theory
2020
,19, 475–512.
[CrossRef]
70.
Hunold, C.; Lloro, T. There goes the neighborhood: Urban coyotes and the politics of wildlife.
J. Urban A.2019. [CrossRef]
71.
Frank, B.; Glikman, J.A.; Marchini, S. (Eds.) Human-Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019.
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
aliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... al. 2018). In addition to lead, pesticides and rodenticides also create a secondary affect to raptors by biomagnification through the rodents and small mammals they consume (Hunold & Mazuchowski 2020). Biomagnification is the process in which accumulation of chemicals intensifies through ingesting other animals or plants. ...
... al. 2020). However, urban management plans implement a 'learn to live with them' approach, only interfering when human safety outweighs the interest of the animal (Hunold & Mazuchowski 2020). Urbanization increases human-wildlife interactions that cause harm through vehicle collisions, building window collisions, electrocution, property damage, pet predation, disease transmission and even physical attacks on humans (Kumar et. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Human-wildlife conflicts have impacted birds of prey in a number of ways. Within this paper interactions, harmful human effects, and preventative measures are discussed to assess ways to lessen damage to both humans and wildlife.
... Even more common than legislation is lethal control, although that option is increasingly opposed by animal rights proponents and others [31,32]. As lethal options become less acceptable in all but the most extreme cases, managers are increasingly forced to develop ways to foster human-wildlife coexistence, emphasizing the need for effective communication with the human population [33]; see Section 4.2 below. Below we update the status of three themes brought up by Perry et al. [1]: (a) trends in publication; (b) the role of urban wildlife rehabilitation centers; and (c) notable recent research. ...
Article
Full-text available
Most ecosystems are increasingly being degraded and reduced by human activities at the local and global scales. In contrast, urban environments are expanding as increasing portions of humanity move into cities. Despite the common perception among biologists that urban areas are biological deserts, cities offer habitat for many non-human species, but their ecology and conservation remain poorly studied. In this review, we first provide an update on the current state of knowledge on urban wildlife, then briefly examine the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on urban wildlife and add four components not previously included in comprehensive reviews. (1) We show that by reducing human activity, COVID-19 has temporarily enhanced urban habitat quality for some species and diminished it for others. (2) Thoughtful horticulture can contribute to urban wildlife by providing complex habitat structures that benefit biodiversity while enhancing human wellbeing. (3) Recent literature on urban invertebrate biodiversity has grown, though is still focused on pollinators. (4) Finally, employing insights from the discipline of communication can enhance the success of urban biodiversity conservation among both biologists and the public.
Chapter
Full-text available
Cities are expanding rapidly, and the impact of dense human-oriented urban systems on ecosystems is both direct (conversion of natural land cover to urban footprint) and indirect. Human settlements are more complex than any other ecosystems as they meet human socio-ecological needs and support local biodiversity. The open spaces of a city with rich cultural character and biodiversity have become important elements of urban design, where urban systems can be planned to coexist with local biodiversity without disturbing the ecosystem. With the need to redefine urban footprint as an ecologically rich urban environment, this chapter addresses the definition of urban open space and questions the coexistence of humans and biodiversity in urban open spaces.
Article
Full-text available
Compassionate conservation argues that actions taken to protect the Earth's diversity of life should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. A set of essays published in Conservation Biology call to reject compassionate conservation. Critics argue that there are situations in which harming animals in conservation programs is appropriate. Three core reasons can be summarized: (1) conservation's raison d'être is biodiversity protection; (2) conservation is already compassionate to nonhumans; and (3) conservation should be compassionate to humans. We analysed these arguments, finding that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognising all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies an entity is owed respect, and should never be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to nonhuman animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of nonhuman beings has served to legitimate the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the more‐than‐human world, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. We embrace compassion for its ability to dismantle human exceptionalism, to recognise nonhuman personhood, and to navigate a more expansive moral space. Article impact statement: The debate about compassionate conservation is about whether to recognize nonhuman personhood. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Article
Full-text available
Contemporary urban ecologies are astonishingly hospitable to wildlife. The “rewilding” of cities is a global phenomenon, and the dynamics of human-wildlife relationalities exhibit considerable social, cultural, racial, ecological, spatial, and species variations in different parts of the world. In the United States, wild animals are thriving in many postindustrial cities whose ecologies have been transformed by significant changes in urban land use, including urban greening. Wild animals have taken advantage of a myriad of friendly spaces created by ecologically restored waterways, parkland, backyards, urban farms, community gardens, green roofs, rain gardens, and other greened spaces that are rewilding cities through provisioning wildlife in unexpected places. As U.S. cities invest in green infrastructure to ameliorate environmental harms, wildlife large and small is occupying novel urban ecological niches located outside large city parks and designated nature preserves. As a result, human-wildlife encounters are becoming more frequent in neighborhoods where such encounters used to be uncommon. Increased sightings of urban wildlife, however, do not imply greater legitimacy for wild animals. Increasing abundance alone does not mean residents will necessarily welcome daily interactions with wild animals. Rather, encounters with urban wildlife prompt a wide range of human responses. Some city residents are rattled by the proximity of wild animals, particularly by predators such as coyotes, foxes, and raccoons they see as “invading” their neighborhoods, while others relish encounters with this wildness next door.
Article
Full-text available
Rodenticides are an essential tool in the integrated pest management of infestations of commensal rodents (Rattus norvegicus, R. rattus, and Mus musculus). With the introduction of Assembly Bill 1788, the California Ecosystems Protection Act of 2019, California is potentially facing a future with new restrictions on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to manage commensal rodents in urban areas. Assembly Bill 1788 has been proposed specifically to protect predators from anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning and seeks to restrict the application of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) for use in many urban and non-urban areas of California, USA. Exclusion and cultural practices, such as landscape management and sanitation (i.e., cleaning of property including but not limited to trash containment and removal, and drain sanitation), remain important and successful tools for managing rodent populations. However, increased exposure of wildlife to anticoagulant rodenticides has been detected California. Several animal species have been documented as having succumbed to rodenticide toxicosis. When rodents are killed by SGARs and consumed by predators, SGAR residues have been detected in the livers of predatory species. However, the effects of chronic, sublethal exposure to predators are not well understood. We discuss the current and proposed changes to rodenticide legislation in California, impacts of rodenticide to wildlife, and the potential effects of restrictions on wildlife. We discuss limitations to rodent management programs that have historically replied on the use of SGARs and the potential impacts of the proposed legislation on communities across California. We also identify research gaps that are impeding the adoption of evidence-based best management strategies for rodent control. To improve the success of commensal rodent control programs in California, more research is needed to develop effective strategies for rodent management.
Book
This book develops a theory of political animal voices in three steps. The first part focuses on language. Drawing on insights from recent studies in biology and ethology, it challenges a view of language as exclusively human and argues that other animals speak. It also investigates the relation between developing common languages and creating common interspecies worlds. The second part of this book focuses on interspecies politics; it challenges an anthropocentric demarcation of the political and develops an alternative, which takes into account non-human animal agency and interspecies political relations. The third and final part of the book draws on the insights about language and politics developed in the first two parts to investigate how existing political practices and institutions can be extended to incorporate non-human animal political voices, and to explore new ways of interacting with other animals politically. In addition to the theoretical chapters, the author discusses two case studies. In the first, she draws on her experiences of learning how to live with a stray dog from Romania. In the second, she focuses on the goose-human conflict in the Netherlands.
Article
Coyotes have incorporated themselves into nearly every major city in North America. As apex predators, coyotes’ ability to thrive in cities testifies not only to the blurring of human-wildlife boundaries in an urbanizing world; it also undermines the idea that cities and suburbs are places where people do not have to contend with wild predators. In cities where coyotes have become established more recently, the timing of their arrival has overlapped with an ongoing reevaluation, in science and in society, of the role of wild animals in urban settings. As part of this reevaluation, conservation scientists are deemphasizing human-wildlife conflict in favor of tolerance and coexistence. And human-animal studies scholars are generating politically and ethically more inclusive multispecies accounts of city life that seek to take seriously wild animals as social actors, both in how they interact with humans and in their own right. How do such calls for more egalitarian human-wildlife relationalities resonate in public debates about urban coyotes? Based on an interpretive media analysis of discussions prompted by reports of coyote sightings in Facebook community pages, we investigate how residents of two cities where coyotes are relative newcomers—Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Chino/Chino Hills, California—attempt to make sense of the arrival of these wild canines.
Article
Under traditional programmes, unclaimed cats entering animal shelters were euthanized by barbiturate injection; since the implementation of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR), cats are sterilised and returned to the streets. TNR cats are not only made to live – they are made to work for politics through a technique of tracking live releases from the shelter system to gain public support. However, biopolitical techniques are more than counting – life persists beyond the statistic. This paper traces the underexplored consequences of ‘nuisance wildlife’ removal laws in the ‘no kill’ era of TNR-only programmes in Miami. Trapped cats can be processed as ‘nuisance wildlife’, and killed by gassing, rather than by the only lawful method for killing cats in a shelter: lethal injection. How does TNR, created to make cats live, result in new vulnerabilities and incongruous cat deaths? This case study makes visible both known and unforeseen nonhuman vulnerabilities when biopolitical techniques are implemented without consideration for the complex systems of power at play within the apparatuses of nonhuman animal management. The precarious lives of cats suspended between wild and domestic, wanted and unwanted, and across political and legal purviews, requires greater engagement with the frameworks of killability for domestic and wild species.