BC seeks another five years of wolf killing: Our technical feedback

The Government of British Columbia is seeking its second five-year approval to continue killing gray wolves in the name of caribou recovery, and Raincoast was invited by the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship to provide technical feedback on the proposed extension.

As there will be no formal public consultation on this proposal, we are sharing the feedback and questions we submitted to the province and encouraging members of the public to write to decision-makers. This is an opportunity to express concerns about the continued aerial killing of wolves and the ongoing lack of meaningful habitat protection for caribou.

To support informed engagement on the proposed extension, we have provided feedback based on our expertise in large carnivore and landscape ecology, with consideration for animal welfare, ecosystem-level dynamics, and the long-term implications of this management approach, while also identifying areas where additional technical clarity would be beneficial. Our comments are based on the best information available to us at the time of writing. We recognize that there may be relevant information, analyses, or management actions that are not publicly available or that we may not have been aware of. 

Animal welfare standards and operational oversight

Engagement materials describe helicopter-based wolf removal as conducted under “strict adherence to provincial animal welfare guidelines” and refer to the method as “the most humane.” The 2026 Procedure Manual states: “Ensure that wolf reduction methods are humane and consistent with current guidelines for the humane killing of wildlife.” 

This characterization warrants further justification given the operational realities of the practice. Aerial shooting involves high-speed pursuit over variable terrain and close-range firearm use in dynamic field conditions where rapid, low-stress death cannot be consistently ensured. In this context, adherence to a standard operating procedure does not, in itself, resolve the fundamental animal welfare concerns associated with aerial wolf removal. Characterizing the practice as unequivocally “humane” may understate the inherent welfare limitations and uncertainties associated with large-scale aerial predator reduction.

Earlier provincial scientific assessments by academic and government scientists have acknowledged that “there are no humane methods to directly reduce wolf numbers, but aerial removal is the only method of killing enough wolves (and entire packs) to reduce wolf densities with no risk of by-catch.”¹ This statement highlights an inherent tension between operational effectiveness and animal welfare outcomes that is not clearly addressed in current public communications.

The province’s reference to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals is noted. However, animal welfare frameworks and oversight guidelines have been developed primarily within controlled or observable research contexts and are widely recognized as difficult to apply consistently in free-ranging wildlife management contexts.^{2 3} Clarification is needed regarding how these standards are operationalized under field conditions and how their limitations are addressed through training, oversight, monitoring, and evaluation.

During our meeting with members of the Caribou Recovery Program team, reference was made to the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) standards during a presentation. It is unclear how specific CCAC guidelines, policies, or standards are being applied in the context of the Predator Reduction Program. We request that the province provide any publicly available documentation describing how the program adopts, applies, or evaluates compliance with them. Given that the Predator Reduction Program is implemented within an adaptive management framework and is intended to inform caribou recovery, further detail is required on how the program aligns with the animal welfare, ethical review, and oversight standards that would typically apply to comparable scientific activities involving wildlife.

The CCAC guidelines on wildlife require that death be confirmed following euthanasia of the target species. We ask how the province confirms mortality following aerial shooting, given that the nature of helicopter-based operations, including speed, altitude, and terrain, may make ground-level confirmation impractical in many circumstances. We are not aware of any published research validating the accuracy or reliability of confirming mortality solely from the air under these conditions. Without systematic confirmation of mortality, reported kill numbers may reflect inferred rather than verified outcomes, raising questions regarding both animal welfare and the accuracy of program evaluation.

The province’s Standard Operating Procedures permit the use of both rapid-expansion lead-core and solid copper ammunition. We request clarification regarding which ammunition types are currently being used operationally, including the extent to which lead-core ammunition is used, whether ammunition use is tracked, and what measures are being taken to mitigate potential lead exposure to scavengers and other wildlife where carcasses are not recovered.⁴

Wolves are highly social animals, and the removal of pack members, particularly breeding adults, is well documented to disrupt pack structure and alter behaviour and physiological responses in surviving individuals.^{5 6 7} CCAC guidelines for wildlife emphasize that “care should be taken for animals that live in groups in order to avoid death, injury, and stress to conspecifics.” Given these considerations, we ask how the program assesses and accounts for the broader social, behavioural, and cumulative welfare impacts experienced by surviving pack members following lethal control operations.

Finally, we note that Canadian university animal care committees operate under CCAC standards, meaning academic researchers participating in research that includes predator control would ordinarily be subject to animal care review. However, university-affiliated researchers involved in caribou recovery studies have generally not required such review because they were not directly involved in the wolf removals, which were conducted under separate government permits and management authorities.⁸

Where provincial researchers collaborate with universities on aspects of predator reduction, a clearer explanation is needed regarding how such projects are reviewed through institutional animal care processes and how determinations regarding ethics and humane methodology are reached, documented, and communicated. Greater transparency would help clarify how animal welfare assessments are conducted across institutions.

Given these considerations, we recommend that the province evaluate options for independent ethical oversight for future phases of the program, particularly in light of prior Freedom of Information disclosures that have raised concerns regarding field practices and operational methods.^{9 10 11} We are also concerned by information shared during our meeting with members of the Caribou Recovery Program team indicating that photographs documenting shot placement are no longer routinely taken. The absence of this documentation may reduce opportunities for independent verification, limit transparency, and constrain the ability to assess animal welfare outcomes and compliance with established protocols.

Evaluating the decision framework and adequacy of habitat protection measures

Greater transparency is needed regarding the specific habitat recovery and protection measures that have already been applied, are currently being implemented, or are planned within the boundaries of caribou herds where wolf reduction is occurring. The decision matrix (Figure 1 in the Caribou Recovery – Wolf Reduction Procedure Manual) states that effective habitat recovery or protection measures should already be planned or underway before a herd is considered for wolf reduction.

The Columbia North herd presents an example where habitat disturbance appears to remain a significant underlying driver of population risk despite ongoing predator reduction measures. An analysis conducted in 2025 identified the herd as facing one of the highest levels of habitat risk, at 76%, when compared with the neighbouring Wells Gray South and Groundhog herds. This included 2,398 hectares of approved logging and pending approvals within Columbia North herd habitat, with 68% of core habitat and 88% of matrix habitat at risk. These findings raise questions regarding how efficacious habitat recovery and protection objectives are being addressed alongside continued industrial activity within the herd range. 

Additional clarification is requested regarding how ongoing industrial disturbance and approved logging activity are reconciled with the requirement that “effective habitat recovery or protection measures” be in place prior to, or concurrent with, predator reduction activities. Clarification is also needed for caribou herds where no predator reduction is currently occurring, including what habitat protection measures are in place or planned, to ensure recovery objectives are being met consistently across all herds. Further information would also be helpful regarding the thresholds used to determine whether habitat conditions have improved sufficiently to reduce or phase out wolf reduction measures within individual herds.

Preventing expansion of predator reduction through habitat protection and inter-ministerial alignment

Predator reduction is currently proposed for 15 herds, but long-term recovery objectives depend on ensuring that additional herds do not require similar intervention. This requires proactive, measurable prevention rather than reactive expansion of wolf reduction. With ongoing logging approvals within the habitat of herds not currently included in the predator reduction program, such as Groundhog and Wells Gray South, there is a real risk that these populations could become increasingly vulnerable and subsequently targeted for predator reduction.

This concern is underscored by recent reporting related to logging approvals within the range of the Wells Gray South herd. Despite being informed that proposed logging in four areas would occur within caribou habitat, including core habitat essential for breeding and survival, the Ministry of Forests approved the permits, with one area appearing to have been logged as recently as May of this year. This pattern raises questions about whether habitat protection objectives are being effectively aligned across government decision-making processes. Although provincial biologists within the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship identify industrial disturbance as a key risk factor for caribou persistence, concurrent authorization of logging within sensitive habitat areas will necessarily undermine recovery objectives and increase the likelihood that additional herds will require future intervention.

We also request clarification regarding what specific inter-ministerial mechanisms, thresholds, or enforceable habitat protection measures are in place to ensure that non-treated herds such as Groundhog and Wells Gray South do not progress toward requiring future predator reduction interventions.

Assessing the long-term viability of predator reduction as a caribou recovery strategy

Predator reduction is often described as a short-term recovery measure. However, predator control associated with caribou recovery in British Columbia has occurred for more than three decades, including aerial wolf killing in the 1980s¹² and sterilization programs in the early 2000s¹³. At the same time, there is broad scientific consensus that restoring functional caribou habitat following extensive industrial disturbance will take decades to achieve.^{14 15} Given these timelines, clarification is requested regarding the province’s long-term ecological objectives for these landscapes, including how climate change, continued habitat fragmentation, and the cumulative impacts of removing multiple species, including wolves, cougars, moose, and deer, are being incorporated into long-term recovery planning. Forecasting species’ responses to long-term trends of ecosystem degradation is paramount in shifting disturbance regimes, especially for forest-associated species undergoing steep, range-wide population declines.^{16 17}

The Itcha-Ilgachuz herd should be considered as an example where long-term predator reduction raises questions regarding effectiveness and sustainability. Wolf reduction has occurred for at least seven years, with a minimum of 377 wolves killed, while research conducted within Itcha-Ilgachuz Park indicates that the effectiveness of wolf reduction may vary depending on terrain and landscape conditions.¹⁸ This finding underscores the importance of adaptive management, strong habitat protection and restoration measures, and greater transparency regarding what habitat actions are being implemented in parallel. Clarification is requested regarding how research demonstrating variable effectiveness of wolf reduction across different ecological conditions is incorporated into the province’s adaptive management framework and decision-making process.

Evaluating the decision framework and long-term ecological consequences of wolf removal

The decision matrix (Figure 1 in the Caribou Recovery – Wolf Reduction Procedure Manual) also states that wolf reduction in the targeted area should pose minimal risk to the long-term viability of the broader wolf population before a caribou herd is considered for treatment. Additional transparency is requested regarding how long-term wolf population viability is assessed, monitored, and incorporated into management decisions over multi-year predator reduction programs. Furthermore, the specific meaning of the operationally vague term, “broader wolf population” is unclear.

The latest published provincial wolf population estimate ranges from approximately 5,300 to 11,600 individuals, and is based on data from 2014.¹⁹ During our meeting with members of the Caribou Recovery Team, we were informed that more recent estimates have been developed and produce a similar range, although these have not yet been publicly released. Given the breadth of the estimated range and the assumptions required to extrapolate population size across large areas, these figures should be interpreted with caution and may provide only a very coarse measure of provincial wolf abundance.^{20 21 22} This uncertainty is relevant when evaluating the cumulative effects of long-term predator reduction programs and assessing potential risks to wolf populations at regional and provincial scales. 

Given that wolf reduction programs typically remove 70–90% of local wolves to achieve densities below three wolves per 1,000 km² in targeted caribou habitat,¹⁵ the implications for long-term wolf population viability warrant careful consideration. Population viability encompasses more than the total number of wolves across the province; it also depends on factors such as genetic diversity, connectivity among populations, demographic structure, social organization, and the capacity of populations to persist over time. Although extensive and sustained wolf killing does not always reduce genetic diversity,²³ adverse effects can be significant in fragmented or disturbed populations, particularly where mortality disproportionately affects breeding individuals. Studies of small or isolated wolf populations show increased risks of inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity under limited gene flow and demographic bottlenecks,^{24 25} whereas broader reviews highlight the importance of connectivity in maintaining genetic health.²⁶ Sustained removal can also disrupt wolf social structure and behavioural continuity by removing experienced breeders, with potential effects on pack stability, dispersal, and prey dynamics.^{27 28 29} Claims of minimal risk also overlook sublethal effects, as heavily hunted populations may experience elevated stress and altered reproduction, with implications for immune function, disease susceptibility, and population stability.³⁰ These considerations are particularly relevant given the intensity and spatial scale of wolf reduction applied in some caribou recovery areas.

We also request clarification regarding how cumulative impacts to wolf populations, pack structure, dispersal dynamics, genetic connectivity, and ecosystem function are evaluated at the herd and regional scale, particularly in areas where predator reduction has occurred for consecutive years. Existing research in northern Canada has identified significant knowledge gaps regarding the ecological effects of sustained wolf reduction beyond population size alone, including potential impacts on pack behaviour, prey selection, disease dynamics, territoriality, movement patterns, and genetic mixing. Additional information is requested regarding whether these broader ecological considerations are being monitored, assessed, or incorporated into long-term management and adaptive management frameworks.

Modern disease ecology recognizes that wolf predation can influence disease dynamics in wild ungulate populations, although effects are highly context-dependent and vary with host-pathogen system, disease stage, and broader ecological conditions.^{31 32} Wolves often disproportionately target older, physically weakened or otherwise vulnerable individuals, including those in poor body condition or advanced stages of infection.³³ In some systems, such as Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in cervids, age-structured and disease-associated predation has been shown to influence mortality patterns and may affect disease dynamics at the population level.³⁴ More broadly, predator presence has also been discussed in relation to the suppression of disease transmission in systems such as bovine tuberculosis in wild ungulates.³⁵

In addition to direct predation, wolves can influence disease dynamics through non-consumptive “fear” effects, where predation risk alters prey movement and foraging behaviour, reducing aggregation and contact rates that facilitate transmission.^{36 37} Wolves may also participate in complex parasite and pathogen systems as both hosts and vectors of infection, contributing to mult-directional disease dynamics within carnivore-ungulate communities.³⁸ Given this complexity, sustained large-scale predator reduction could alter these ecological functions, with potential consequences for wildlife disease dynamics and broader ecosystem processes.³⁹ These potential effects warrant further consideration, monitoring, and integration into adaptive management frameworks in long-term caribou recovery programs.

It should also be noted that wolf removal can have unintended consequences through mesopredator release and broader shifts in predator communities. Wolves suppress coyotes through direct killing, territorial exclusion, and interference competition, and reductions in wolf abundance have been associated with increases in coyote distribution and abundance in a number of North American systems.^{40 41} This is particularly relevant to caribou recovery given that coyotes are capable predators of ungulate neonates, and in some systems, adults. Consequently, predator reduction may alter the composition and dynamics of predator communities, potentially shifting predation pressure among predator species rather than eliminating it altogether.^{42 43}

Wolves also suppress cougar populations and behaviour through interference competition, kleptoparasitism, and direct mortality.^{44 45} In contrast, coyotes generally do not exert comparable competitive effects on cougars. Consequently, reductions in wolf abundance may relax constraints on cougars while simultaneously facilitating coyote expansion, potentially reshaping predator communities and altering predation dynamics in ways that extend beyond the direct effects of wolf removal.^{46 47 48}

More broadly, where a scientific activity is likely to have lasting negative effects on a local population or ecosystem, Canadian Council of Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines require that the investigator demonstrate both the necessity of the activity and that its anticipated benefits justify the harms imposed. In this context, clarification is needed regarding specific long-term ecological outcomes the Predator Reduction Program is intended to achieve, the measurable criteria by which success is being evaluated, and the conditions under which the program would be modified, reduced, or concluded. While predator reduction has been implemented as a component of caribou recovery, the long-term persistence of many herds remains dependent on habitat protection and restoration. 

We therefore ask how the welfare costs imposed on wolves are being weighed against anticipated conservation benefits, and whether explicit biological or management endpoints have been established to determine when continued predator reduction is no longer necessary. Without clearly defined objectives, performance measures, and decision thresholds, it is difficult to evaluate whether the program satisfies the standard of demonstrated necessity contemplated by these guidelines.

1. Serrouya R, McLellan, BN. 2016. Columbia Mountains Caribou Research Project; BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, Revelstoke, BC.
2. Sikes RS, Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. 2016. 2016 guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J Mammal. 97(3):663–688. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyw078
3. Laber K, Kennedy BW, Young L. 2007. Field studies and the IACUC: protocol review, oversight, and occupational health and safety considerations. Lab Anim. 36(1):27–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban0107-27
4. Lambertucci SA, Donázar JA, Hiraldo F. 2010. Poisoning people and wildlife with lead ammunition: time to stop. Environ Sci Technol. 44(20):7759–7760. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102667c
5. Brainerd SM, Andrén H, Bangs EE, Bradley EH, Fontaine JA, Hall W, Iliopoulos Y, Jimenez MD, Jozwiak EA, Liberg O, Mack CM, Meier TJ, Niemeyer CC, Pedersen HC, Sand H, Schultz RN, Smith DW, Wabakken P, Wydeven AP. 2008. The effects of breeder loss on wolves. J Wildl Manag. 72(1):89–98. https://doi.org/10.2193/2006-305
6. Borg BL, Brainerd SM, Meier TJ, et al. 2015. Impacts of breeder loss on social structure, reproduction and population growth in a social canid. J Anim Ecol. 84(2):446–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12256
7. Smith DW, Metz MC, Wiewel AM, et al. 2024. Effects of lethal management on gray wolf pack persistence and reproduction in Wisconsin, USA. Sci Rep. 14:9895. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60764-6
8. Lamb CT, Williams S, Boutin S, Bridger M, Cichowski D, Cornhill K, DeMars C, Dickie M, Ernst B, Ford A, Gillingham MP, et al. 2024. Effectiveness of population-based recovery actions for threatened southern mountain caribou. Ecol Appl. 34(4):e2965. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2965
9. FOI Request FNR-2022-20672. Government of British Columbia. Available from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/enSearch/detail?id=7AFDBC16F15F42E289E9F7DDB0F80C40&recorduid=FNR-2022-20672
10. FOI Request LWR-2022-23324. Government of British Columbia. Available from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/enSearch/detail?id=7AFDBC16F15F42E289E9F7DDB0F80C40&recorduid=LWR-2022-23324
11. FOI Request WLR-2024-41566. Government of British Columbia. Available from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/enSearch/detail?id=7AFDBC16F15F42E289E9F7DDB0F80C40&recorduid=WLR-2024-41566
12. National Research Council. 1997. Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. Chapter 5, Wolf and Bear Management: Experiments and Evaluations. https://doi.org/10.17226/5791
13. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 2012. Evaluation of a wolf sterilization program: Quesnel Highland pilot assessment. Victoria (BC): British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Available from: https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/files/Evaluation%20of%20a%20Wolf%20Sterilization%20Program.pdf
14. Serrouya R, Seip DR, Hervieux D, McLellan BN, McNay RS, Steenweg R, et al. 2019. Saving endangered species using adaptive management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116(13):6181–6186. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.181692311
15. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. 2025. Predator reduction to support caribou recovery 2024–25: summary report. Victoria (BC): Government of British Columbia.
16. Maltman JC, Coops NC, Rickbeil GJM, Hermosilla T, Burton AC. 2024. Quantifying forest disturbance regimes within caribou (Rangifer tarandus) range in British Columbia. Scientific Reports. 14:6520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56943-0
17. Johnson CJ, Ehlers LPW, Seip DR. 2015. Witnessing extinction: cumulative impacts across landscapes and the future loss of an evolutionarily significant unit of woodland caribou in Canada. Biological Conservation. 186:176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.012
18. Gharajehdaghipour T, Auger-Méthé M, Burton AC. 2026. Neonate mortality in mountain caribou: patterns of predation during onset of a wolf reduction program. Journal of Wildlife Management. 90:e70143. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70143
19. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2014. Management plan for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. Victoria (BC): Province of British Columbia.
20. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2014. Management plan for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. Victoria (BC): Province of British Columbia.
21. Kuzyk GW, Hatter IW. 2014. Using ungulate biomass to estimate abundance of wolves in British Columbia. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 38(4):878–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.475
22. Robertshaw C, Greer C, Paquet PC. 2026. Genetic legacy and ecological differences of grey wolves (Canis lupus) in southern British Columbia. Raincoast Conservation Foundation. https://doi.org/10.70766/23.7573
23. US Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Does harvest affect genetic diversity in gray wolves? USGS Publications Warehouse. Available: https://www.usgs.gov/publications/does-harvest-affect-genetic-diversity-grey-wolves
24. Fredrickson RJ, Schwartz MK, Etchberger RC, et al. 2021. Genetic consequences of small population size in Mexican wolves. Molecular Ecology 30(14): 3456–3470. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15937
25. Åkesson M, Bensch S, Flagstad Ø, et al. 2021. Genetic consequences of a demographic bottleneck in Scandinavian wolves. Conservation Genetics 22: 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-021-01423-5
26. Wang J, Bruford MW, O’Connell M, et al. 2014. Population genetics and conservation of wolves in Europe: a review of genetic structure and gene flow. BMC Evolutionary Biology 14: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-64
27. Mech LD, Boitani L, editors. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
28. Borg BL, Brainerd SM, Meier TJ, Smith DW, McCarthy TM, Asher VJ, et al. 2015. Impacts of breeder loss on social structure and population dynamics in a wolf population. Journal of Animal Ecology. 84(2): 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12247
29. MacNulty DR, Smith DW, Mech LD, Vucetich JA, Packer C. 2009. Body size and predatory performance in wolves: effects of pack size and social structure. Behavioral Ecology. 20(6): 1191–1198. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arp101
30. Bryan HM, Smits JEG, Koren L, Paquet PC, Wynne-Edwards KE, Musiani M. 2015. Heavily hunted wolves have higher stress and reproductive steroids than wolves with lower hunting pressure. Functional Ecology. 29(3):347–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12354
31. Gagné RB. 2022. Modelling the role of predation on disease burdens of prey. J Anim Ecol. 91:1330–1333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13757
32. Richards RL, Elderd BD, Duffy MA. 2023. Unhealthy herds and the predator-spreader: understanding when predation increases disease incidence and prevalence. Ecol Evol. 13:e9918. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9918
33. Hoy SR, Vucetich JA, Peterson RO. 2022. The role of wolves in regulating a chronic non-communicable disease, osteoarthritis, in prey populations. Front Ecol Evol. 10:819137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.819137
34. Brandell EE, Cross PC, Smith DW, Rogers W, Galloway NL, MacNulty DR, et al. 2022. Examination of the interaction between age-specific predation and chronic disease in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. J Anim Ecol. 91(7):1373–1384. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13661
35. Tanner E, White A, Acevedo P, Balseiro A, Marcos J, Gortázar C. 2019. Wolves contribute to disease control in a multi-host system. Sci Rep. 9:7940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44148-9
36. Richards RL, Elderd BD, Duffy MA. 2023. Unhealthy herds and the predator-spreader: understanding when predation increases disease incidence and prevalence. Ecol Evol. 13:e9918. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9918
37. Creel S, Christianson D. 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Ecology. 89(9):2224–2232. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1138.1
38. Kutz SJ, Checkley S, Verocai GG, Dumond M, Hoberg EP, Peacock R, et al. 2014. Chapter on parasite ecology in Arctic wildlife systems (carnivore–parasite dynamics). Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 3(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijppaw.2013.11.001
39. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science. 343(6167):1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
40. Berger KM, Gese EM. 2007. Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? J Anim Ecol. 76(6):1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01287.x
41. Hody JW, Kays R. 2018. Mapping the expansion of coyotes across North and Central America. Zookeys. 759:81–97. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.759.15149
42. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science. 343(6167):1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
43. Levi T, Wilmers CC. 2012. Wolves-coyotes-foxes: a cascade among carnivores. Ecology. 93(4):921–929. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0165.1
44. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science. 343(6167):1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
45. Elbroch LM, Kusler A. 2018. Are pumas subordinate carnivores, and does it matter? PeerJ. 6:e4293. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4293
46. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science. 343(6167):1241484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
47. Elbroch LM, Kusler A. 2018. Are pumas subordinate carnivores, and does it matter? PeerJ. 6:e4293. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4293
48. Kortello AD, Hurd TE, Murray DL. 2007. Interactions between cougars and gray wolves in Banff National Park, Alberta. Ecoscience. 14(2):214–222.