Heading to a National Park? Watch Out for Elk. They Attack People Way More Often Than Bears Do, According to a New Study (www.smithsonianmag.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Wren@lemmy.today to c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When most people think of the threats they might encounter in a national park, grizzly bears might be at the top of their list. But new research suggests that they should worry about a different animal: elk.

A study of human-wildlife conflicts recorded by Parks Canada found that the huge, hoofed creatures were responsible for more than half of aggressive encounters with animals from 2010 through 2023. The findings, published on July 1 in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, can help park managers focus their safety education and allow parkgoers to better coexist with animals.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

There's a reason elk are frequently seen as guardians of the forest, kings of the forest or some kind of adjacent association.

Well that and they do grow a sick ass crown.

[-] Hayduke@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

What people may not realize is that a full gown male elk can be north of 900 pounds (species-pending), rack and all. They will ruin your day faster than you can blink. A female is just as capable of ending you as well at around 600 pounds.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

Wyoming resident here. Moose are fucking huge. Most of the time they are chill, but when they are not, they are terrifying. ALWAYS give wild animals A LOT of space.

PS: Tourons. https://www.instagram.com/touronsofnationalparks/?hl=en

[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Not an elk! Anne Elk! Miss Anne Elk!

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026

16 points (100.0% liked)

Wild Feed

612 readers

92 users here now

A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.

Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
Post title should be the article headline.
No misinformation or bigotry.
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.

Tag if needed:

[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.

[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.

[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.

[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.

[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.

[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.

*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.

*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.

Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.

All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.

Sources posted here include:

https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/

https://www.apa.org/

apnews.com/

https://arstechnica.com/

https://www.theatlantic.com/

https://www.bbc.com/

https://www.earth.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/

https://lithub.com/