How we can coexist with coyotes, and other lessons from Stanley Park

University of British Columbia

Facebook

WeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

A coyote at Lost Lagoon in Stanley Park, Vancouver

view more 

Credit: Nathan Lewis

Researchers are sharing lessons from the unprecedented Stanley Park coyote attacks from 2020 to 2021 to help people better coexist with urban wildlife. 

Coyotes are here to stay, say authors of a new study which examined contributing factors to nine months of aggressive coyote encounters that resulted in a cull of 11 coyotes in Vancouver’s largest urban park. 

We spoke with Nathan Lewis, a zoology doctoral candidate, and Dr. Sarah Benson-Amram, an associate professor in the departments of zoology and forest and conservation sciences, about how people across North America can live in harmony with their four-legged neighbours. 

What did your study find? 

NL: The influx of park visitors during the pandemic lockdowns saw an increase in encounters with coyotes: From December 2020 to August 2021, there were 45 coyote attacks on humans involving bites or scratches, with another 63 encounters where coyotes lunged or threatened people. Before this period, only one aggressive encounter had been reported in almost 10 years. 

More people in the park meant more encounters, and evidence suggests this increased the rate at which the coyotes habituated to human presence. That loss of fear emboldened them to interact more frequently and sometimes aggressively with people, but there were also other factors at play. 

We found anecdotal evidence that people were feeding coyotes. Prior studies have shown habituation paired with food conditioning often results in animals acting boldly and aggressively to get food. 

Why do we need this research? 

SBA: Coyote attacks are very rare. A previous study documented an average of three coyote attacks on people per year across both the U.S. and Canada between 1960 to 2006. This makes them hard to study. In Stanley Park, we had a very unusual situation which presented a unique opportunity to examine the contributing factors and what people can do to help protect themselves in the future. 

Research has found that culls do not permanently stop human-coyote conflict. Coyotes are here to stay. They are very adaptable and reproduce quickly to maintain stable populations. Relocating them is illegal in many places and often ends poorly for both the coyotes and humans in the relocation area. 

Coyotes also provide important ecosystem balance. If you’re not a fan of rats, you should be a fan of coyotes. And balanced urban ecosystems are important for human health. 

So the best approach is to learn how to coexist. 

What tips did you find for coexisting with coyotes? 

NL: The vast majority of encounters with coyotes are not aggressive, but nobody saw the Stanley Park attacks coming so we shouldn't wait to start seeing early signs of conflicts. We need to help prevent habituation and food conditioning by not feeding coyotes and not leaving garbage they can eat lying around. 

Similarly, don’t approach coyotes. If they approach you, make yourself seem big and threatening by waving your arms, shouting, furling and unfurling an umbrella, etc. 

Our university had a famous campus coyote, Kip, who walked around UBC in the middle of the day. He was sadly hit by a car in 2024. Kip was very clearly habituated to, and had been fed by, people. As far as I know, there were never any reported incidents of Kip being aggressive to people, but there were incidents when he was aggressive to dogs in the presence of people, and that’s not normal behaviour. 

When coyotes are comfortable with people, it can lead to conflicts and ultimately it’s not in their, or our, best interests. 

Our study also found that running or jogging, being alone, being out at times of low human activity such as early morning or late night, and being near den sites seemed to make attacks slightly more likely in areas with coyotes. 

Interestingly, age and having a dog present did not relate to the likelihood of attacks. 

With this information, people can make informed decisions about when, where and how they spend time outdoors to better coexist with our urban wildlife neighbours. 

This research was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Ministry of Water Land and Resource Stewardship, and the Habitat Trust and Conservation Foundation. 

A coyote at Jericho Beach Park, Vancouver, Canada

A coyote by the Hollow Tree in Stanley Park, Vancouver, Canada

Credit

Nathan Lewis

A coyote on Langara Trail by the Langara golf course, Vancouver, Canada. Note: this photo has been brightened with contrast adjusted in Photoshop.

Credit

Animal Behaviour & Cognition Lab

---

Journal

Animal Behaviour

DOI

10.1016/j.anbehav.2026.123617 

 

Rising human-elephant conflict in Southern Africa

PNAS Nexus

WhatsAppEmail

A study predicts increasing human-elephant conflict in Southern Africa. A growing number of farmers and 290,000 African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) share space in Southern Africa, with conflicts arising from elephants raiding cropland. Crop raids by elephants can be financially devastating for farmers. 

Evan Patrick and colleagues used both causal inference statistical methods and machine learning models to analyze a dataset of crop raiding events across Namibia’s communal conservancies from 2004 to 2020 to determine the predictors of human-elephant conflict. The authors used these event data to identify trends across a wider area, including northern Botswana and portions of Angola and Zambia in addition to Namibia, to evaluate the drivers of conflict. 

The analysis identifies human population growth, cropland expansion, and climate-driven aridity as major drivers of increasing rates of crop raiding. The authors also mapped the probability of conflict throughout the study area. Key variables for these maps include tree cover, distance to roads, distance to fences, distance to rivers, human population density, and productivity of vegetation. The models predict a general increase in the probability of crop raiding toward the end of the century under all climate change scenarios in both wet and dry seasons, with the area at risk of crop raiding doubling under the change climate scenarios. Increasing human land use will continue to place pressure on elephants even as climate change reduces their wild food supply. According to the authors, the model’s predictions can inform the proactive land use planning and mitigation measures that will be essential for long-term coexistence between humans and elephants.

---

Journal

PNAS Nexus

Article Title

An expanding human footprint drives escalating human–elephant conflict across a transboundary African landscape through 2085

Article Publication Date

7-Jul-2026

COI Statement

E.P. has a consulting relationship with Carbon Direct Inc., a company combining science, technology, and capital to deliver quality carbon dioxide management at scale. The other authors declare no competing interests.

 

Wolves around the world have evolved different skull shapes – humans are also shaping their evolution

University of Oulu, Finland

WeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Wolf skulls from 1933. On the left is a skull from the Yukon, Canada, and on the right is one from Kuusamo, Finland, both from 1933. Photo: Dominika Bujnáková / University of Oulu

view more 

Credit: Photo: Dominika Bujnáková / University of Oulu

A new international study led by researchers at the University of Oulu, Finland, shows that wolves living in different parts of the world are not anatomically identical. Their skulls differ in shape and size according to climate, prey availability, evolutionary history, and increasingly, the influence of humans.

The researchers analysed 227 wolf skulls from Europe, Asia and North America using high-resolution three-dimensional imaging and geometric morphometric methods. The study revealed that environmental factors such as latitude and prey type explain part of the variation.

"Wolves have adapted to the environments they inhabit over thousands of years. Populations living in different habitats face different ecological pressures, and these are reflected in the shape of their skulls," says Dominika Bujnáková doctoral researcher at the University of Oulu and lead author of the study.

However, the study also suggests that natural environmental differences are only part of the story.

Human activities have profoundly altered wolf populations during the last two centuries

Across Europe and North America, many wolf populations were severely reduced or completely eradicated during the 19th and 20th centuries. Some populations later recovered naturally, while others were recolonised by wolves from neighbouring regions or experienced hybridisation with other populations, as shown for example in the previous study. These demographic changes left a measurable signature in skull morphology, increasing differences between populations alongside the effects of natural isolation and local adaptation.

"In many cases, humans have reinforced the processes that naturally make populations different. By reducing population sizes and fragmenting habitats, we have limited gene flow and accelerated divergence between some populations not only in genetic terms but also in how those populations look like", Bujnáková explains.

The findings are particularly relevant for Finland and Scandinavia. Wolves were nearly exterminated from the region before recovering through immigration from eastern populations. The study shows that such historical events can leave lasting effects on the morphology of populations, even after wolves return.

The results also have practical implications for conservation. As wolf populations recovered throughout parts of Europe and there are ongoing efforts for wolf reintroduction in the North America, understanding local adaptations becomes increasingly important when planning translocations, reintroductions or population reinforcement. Moving wolves between regions without considering their evolutionary and ecological differences may reduce the match between animals and their local environments.

The research also highlights the importance of museum collections. Many of the analysed skulls were collected decades ago, allowing researchers to reconstruct patterns of variation that would otherwise no longer be observable.

The study was conducted at the Ecology and Genetics Research Unit of the University of Oulu in collaboration with international researchers and natural history museums.

Human-driven differences in wolf morphology

• Human activity over the past two centuries has not only reduced wolf populations but also reshaped their evolution, leaving clear marks on skull morphology.

• Population declines, habitat fragmentation and human-driven recolonisation have limited gene flow and accelerated physical divergence between wolf populations.

• As a result, current differences in skull shape reflect a combination of natural adaptation and strong, lasting human influence, which must be considered in conservation.

The study Global Drivers of Morphological Variation in Grey Wolves was published in June 2026.

Read also: Wolf skulls reveal population replacement in Fennoscandia

 

A wolf photographed in Finland. Photo: Dominika Bujnáková / University of Oulu

Credit

Photo: Dominika Bujnáková / University of Oulu

Journal

Diversity and Distributions

DOI

10.1111/ddi.70228 

Article Title

Global Drivers of Morphological Variation in Grey Wolves

 

A new and efficient method for preparing pseudopregnant mice promotes laboratory animal welfare

National Institutes of Natural Sciences

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

A mouse maintained in a laboratory environment.

view more 

Credit: Eiji Watanabe

In biomedical research utilizing mouse models, the preparation of pseudopregnant recipient females is a standard step in embryo transfer protocols. Conventionally, this process requires technicians to select female mice demonstrating clear signs of estrus. Because only a limited percentage of mice naturally enter this stage daily, facilities often maintain a relatively large stock of female mice. Furthermore, group housing can induce the "Lee-Boot effect," a biological phenomenon where caged females suppress each other's estrous cycles, thereby decreasing selection efficiency and requiring careful management to ensure animal well-being.

In a study published in the Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (JAALAS), Yuji Noguchi and Eiji Watanabe at the National Institute for Basic Biology (NIBB) investigated a methodological adjustment to this protocol. The study explores whether pseudopregnant recipients can be reliably prepared by actively utilizing female mice that exhibit nonestrous signs, rather than searching exclusively for those in estrus.

The evaluated method integrates existing biological effects to optimize institutional resources. First, female mice were group-housed to intentionally induce the Lee-Boot effect, maximizing the proportion of nonestrous individuals. These female mice were then introduced to vasectomized males for three days. The introduction of male pheromones stimulates the "Whitten effect," synchronizing the females' estrous cycles and leading to targeted copulation on the third day.

"By adjusting our protocol to include mice showing nonestrous signs, which are typically bypassed in standard screening, we can establish a more predictable and sustainable preparation system," states Yuji Noguchi, the lead author of the study. Eiji Watanabe, the corresponding author of the study, further highlights the broader ethical and practical impact of this research: "The primary benefit of this approach is that it allows laboratories to significantly minimize the number of stock animals they need to maintain. This optimizes facility space and directly supports the 3Rs principles—specifically the 'Reduction' of animal use in scientific procedures."

---

Journal

Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science

DOI

10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-25-131 

 

Drawing the line: Virtual versus physical fences

Researchers at Göttingen University show value of invisible boundaries in field trials with cattle

University of Göttingen

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Cattle are grazing within a pasture area defined by the "Nofence" virtual fencing system on Göttingen University's farming area to carry out research in Relliehausen (2021).

view more 

Credit: Göttingen University / Natascha A. Grinnell

Virtual fences could make managing grazing livestock on farms more flexible and more efficient whilst improving animal welfare. A new study by the University of Göttingen shows that virtual fences trigger similar behaviour in cattle, in terms of how they move around in the field, to conventional electric fences. This finding clearly puts the concerns, which are commonly expressed about animal welfare, into perspective. The results were published in the journal Animal.

 

In previous research on this theme, cattle wore collars which emitted acoustic signals – and, where necessary, electrical pulses – when they approached the boundary. During the learning process, the animals associated the warning tone with the unpleasant stimulus and subsequently, mostly respected the virtually defined boundary simply as a response to the noise. As previous analyses of the experiment had not revealed any significant behavioural differences between animals in virtual and conventionally fenced enclosures, the researchers decided to take a closer look in their current study. In order to map the distance to the fence – and identify any effect on the cattle’s behaviour that might only occur in the vicinity of the virtual boundary – they used GPS to assign the movement data of the 31 cows to two different zones (peripheral zone and centre of the pasture) and compared them.

 

The key finding was that it was not the type of fence that made the difference, but the boundary itself – regardless of whether it was visible or not. Regardless of the system used, the animals were less likely to be found at the edges of the field, moved more slowly there, and tended to use the centre of the pasture. Virtual fences also led to a more even distribution of the animals across the area.

 

“Our findings show that it is not the type of fence that is the deciding factor, but rather the animals’ perception of the boundary of the pasture,” says lead author Dr Natascha Grinnell at Göttingen University’s Institute of Grassland Science. “Virtual fences are respected by cattle just as reliably as conventional electric fences and are not fundamentally more problematic from an animal welfare perspective. This opens up new opportunities for farmers to manage grazing in a modern and flexible way.”

 

Researchers from the University of Göttingen will also be presenting their findings at the ‘Virtual Fencing’ field day on Monday 6 July in Alt Madlitz, Brandenburg. Further information about the event can be found here (in German): https://shop.gutundboesel.org/products/grosser-feldtag-mit-hoftour-virtual-fencing-6-juli-2026.

Original publication: Grinnell, N.A. et al. “Drawing the line: Comparing zone-specific spatial behaviour of heifers on pasture with virtual and physical fences”. Animal (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2026.101820.

---

Journal

animal

DOI

10.1016/j.animal.2026.101820 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Drawing the line: Comparing zone-specific spatial behaviour of heifers on pasture with virtual and physical fences

 

Cattle are resting in the field at Göttingen University’s farming area to carry out research in Relliehausen during a trial of grazing using the "Nofence" virtual fencing system (2021).

 

Dr Natascha Grinnell and Dr Dina Hamidi in front of a cow wearing a "Nofence" collar. The photograph was taken in 2021 at Göttingen University’s farming area to carry out research in Relliehausen during a trial of grazing using the "Nofence" virtual fencing system.

Credit

Göttingen University / Natascha A. Grinnell