Close encounters of a wildlife kind

However, whether specific recreational activities, species, and a combination of both recreational activities and species are associated with higher frequencies of aggressive encounters remains understudied.

A new study by researchers at the University of York into how recreational activities influence the frequency of aggressive human-wildlife interactions of five large mammal species in national parks in Canada has produced findings that could influence conservation and recreation policies in Yorkshire’s designated landscapes.

It found while bears often get a bad reputation, they might not be the species most often involved in human-wildlife interaction that can lead to conflicts in the designated landscapes.

Researchers concluded recreational activity type and species significantly alter the frequency of aggressive encounters.

Low impact activities, such as hiking and running, were associated with significantly more aggressive encounters regardless of species involved, despite their presumed minimal ecological footprint.

When packing for a trip to a national park, most visitors worry about apex predators like grizzly bears. However, the research has found elk, a much more common creature in the country, poses the highest risk.

Published in Frontiers in Conservation Science, the study analysed nearly 3,000 human-wildlife conflicts recorded by Parks Canada between 2010 and 2023. The data reveals that elk were involved in 62 per cent of all aggressive encounters.

Grizzly bears accounted for 14 per cent, followed by black bears at 13 dper cent, mule deer at seven per cent, and coyotes at three per cent.

The research highlights that conflicts rarely involve extreme thrill-seekers. Instead, 25 per cent of incidents occurred during low-impact activities like hiking and wildlife observation, while 22 per cent took place in sites around towns.

Dr Shashank Balakrishna, a biologist and senior author of the study, said: "Each species occupies a different ecological role, so they perceive human threat differently.

"Elk sometimes avoid humans, but at other times use human presence as refuge from predators. This unpredictability may explain why they top the list for aggressive encounters."

By analysing specific animal-activity combinations, the team identified exact scenarios where conflict risks spike:

• Elk at townsites: Elk were involved in over 73 per cent of incidents in towns and 57 per cent of encounters during adventure sports.

• Dog walking: Mule deer and coyotes showed higher rates of aggression around domestic pets, likely because dogs resemble natural predators.

• Quiet trails: Grizzly and black bears were most frequently encountered during quiet hikes in forested areas (45 per cent and 43 per cent respectively), where surprise encounters can trigger defensive reactions.

"Now we can point to precise high‑risk pairings, such as elk visiting townsite areas or mule deer encountered during dog walking," said Dr Balakrishna.

"This allows park managers to focus resources, signage, and education where they are most needed."

The researchers say the goal is not to stop people from enjoying nature, but to empower them with the tools to do so safely.

Co-author Holly Landles, added: "Announcing yourself is a good idea, especially for grizzly bears. Taking whistles, talking, or hiking in larger groups can help, too. Keeping dog leads short when large herds are present is simple but effective."

While the study relies on reported data and does not show direct cause-and-effect, it offers a crucial framework for international wildlife management and safer human-animal coexistence.

"Ultimately, both people and wildlife lose during aggressive encounters," says Landles. "Our findings help us understand real patterns behind these encounters so we can reduce their frequency and help people and wildlife coexist more safely."