Coyote Killing Contests: Persistence of Differences among Oregonians
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the manuscript is wildlife management (in particular coyote killing contests in Oregon and differences in thought among Oregonians) and its scope is interesting. It is a good critical discourse analysis of testimonies in Oregon hearings. The methods are solid.
The manuscript offers important insights about this topic.
I think that the structure of the paper is good. The language is very clear and the discussion is very interesting to read; the logic and the flow is very good.
Author Response
Thank you for the thoughtful and very helpful review of this manuscript. Below are the items noted that needed correction/addition/refinement.
In regard to adding more from Kellert, I inserted the following paragraph on page 4:
Kellert’s (1984, 1985, 1996) ongoing study of American attitudes toward animals have consistently revealed preference for pets/domestic animals such as dogs and horses and “relatively negative views of the coyote” (1984, p. 191) “who were represented in the bottom half of the ranked animals” (1996). Factors that contribute to like/dislike include attributes such as size and aesthetics, but also, as relate to coyotes, “danger to humans,” “likelihood of inflicting property damage,” “predatory tendencies,” “relationship to human society” (pet or pest), and “cultural and historical relationships” (p. 191). Any and potentially all of these can be influenced by media and popular culture portrayals. When wildlife fall in the category of “predators” attitudes are often mixed, but when it comes to coyotes between views of general public who opposed “indiscriminate population reductions” and lethal means, versus livestock producers who were in favor of lethal control strategies (p. 194). Kellert, Black, Rush, & Bath (1986) note that “creatures such as snakes, rats, coyotes, and bats were frequently viewed as intrinsically unworthy” by Euro-American settlers and the killing of predators such as wolves and by extension coyotes, “attested to one’s belief in community and God as much as to practical threats to livestock and person” (Kellert, 1996, p. 978). They were regarded as “hateful creatures” and “tended to be viewed from the perch of this morality play as intrinsically evil” (p. 104). These historical and cultural beliefs form the underlying context for the persistence of many negative
beliefs about coyotes still present in ranching and farming communities that persist today.
-
Minor comments / typos: page 3, line 106: Although I understand the intention that dogs descend from wolves through the process of domestication, the sentence takes the reader to understand that wolves, as wild animals, are also domesticated. “wolves and” removed
-
I recommend rephrasing. page 12, line 529: the three types of analysis have not been detailed earlier, as stated. “detailed earlier” removed
-
Only the three 'basic properties' page 13, lines 540-542: the sentence seems misplaced and it's not coherent page 13, line 546: I’m not finding this, perhaps line numbers are different in the version I was sent versus reviewer's copy?
-
'Furthermore' is misplaced page 14, line 610: 'In this case' is misplaced- removed.
Changed to: Furthermore, evident in the testimonies, “hunting violators defend a particular rural identity and way of life, thus expressing rural protest” (p. 442).
-These references added:
Kellert, S. R. (1984). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. In M. W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 177-213). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
Kellert, S. R. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Shearwater Books.
Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Reid Rush, C., & Bath, A. J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 977-990.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the article is coherent and comprehensible. The methodological approach is perfectly grounded and the results, although somewhat leveraged by the author's personal opinion, are well described. In a context of content analysis, due to its intrinsic subjective component, one can always discuss the depth and orientation, but, in general, the conclusions correspond to the results and research aim. Without taking credit for the author, I believe that the study would benefit a lot if there was a reflection on beliefs, values and attitudes, since, from the psychology point of view, this is what it is about. A starting point for contextualization should definitely be Kellert's Attitudinal Dimensions (e.g. 1980, 1985, 1996), which also addresses the human-coyote conflict. Minor comments / typos: page 3, line 106: Although I understand the intention that dogs descend from wolves through the process of domestication, the sentence takes the reader to understand that wolves, as wild animals, are also domesticated. I recommend rephrasing. page 12, line 529: the three types of analysis have not been detailed earlier, as stated. Only the three 'basic properties' page 13, lines 540-542: the sentence seems misplaced and it's not coherent page 13, line 546: 'Furthermore' is misplaced page 14, line 610: 'In this case' is misplaced
Author Response
Thank you for the thoughtful and very helpful review of this manuscript. Below are the items noted that needed correction/addition/refinement.
In regard to adding more from Kellert, I inserted the following paragraph on page 4:
Kellert’s (1984, 1985, 1996) ongoing study of American attitudes toward animals have consistently revealed preference for pets/domestic animals such as dogs and horses and “relatively negative views of the coyote” (1984, p. 191) “who were represented in the bottom half of the ranked animals” (1996). Factors that contribute to like/dislike include attributes such as size and aesthetics, but also, as relate to coyotes, “danger to humans,” “likelihood of inflicting property damage,” “predatory tendencies,” “relationship to human society” (pet or pest), and “cultural and historical relationships” (p. 191). Any and potentially all of these can be influenced by media and popular culture portrayals. When wildlife fall in the category of “predators” attitudes are often mixed, but when it comes to coyotes between views of general public who opposed “indiscriminate population reductions” and lethal means, versus livestock producers who were in favor of lethal control strategies (p. 194). Kellert, Black, Rush, & Bath (1986) note that “creatures such as snakes, rats, coyotes, and bats were frequently viewed as intrinsically unworthy” by Euro-American settlers and the killing of predators such as wolves and by extension coyotes, “attested to one’s belief in community and God as much as to practical threats to livestock and person” (Kellert, 1996, p. 978). They were regarded as “hateful creatures” and “tended to be viewed from the perch of this morality play as intrinsically evil” (p. 104). These historical and cultural beliefs form the underlying context for the persistence of many negative
beliefs about coyotes still present in ranching and farming communities that persist today.
-
Minor comments / typos: page 3, line 106: Although I understand the intention that dogs descend from wolves through the process of domestication, the sentence takes the reader to understand that wolves, as wild animals, are also domesticated. “wolves and” removed
-
I recommend rephrasing. page 12, line 529: the three types of analysis have not been detailed earlier, as stated. “detailed earlier” removed
-
Only the three 'basic properties' page 13, lines 540-542: the sentence seems misplaced and it's not coherent page 13, line 546: I’m not finding this, perhaps line numbers are different in the version I was sent versus reviewer's copy?
-
'Furthermore' is misplaced page 14, line 610: 'In this case' is misplaced- removed.
Changed to: Furthermore, evident in the testimonies, “hunting violators defend a particular rural identity and way of life, thus expressing rural protest” (p. 442).
-These references added:
Kellert, S. R. (1984). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. In M. W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 177-213). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
Kellert, S. R. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Shearwater Books.
Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Reid Rush, C., & Bath, A. J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 977-990.
