A Critical Look at Coyote Watch Canada

Who is Lesley Sampson?

Coyote Watch Canada, under the leadership of its founder, Lesley Sampson, presents itself as a scientific authority on all things coyote-related. The only problem? Sampson is not a biologist, a wildlife scientist, or even a trained ecologist—she's a school teacher with a habit of frequently misusing scientific terminology. Case in point: her baffling application of the word fossorial to describe coyotes, a term that actually refers to animals adapted for digging and living underground, like moles or gophers. Coyotes, being neither mole-like nor tunnel-dwelling, might be surprised to learn they’ve been reassigned as subterranean creatures by Sampson’s creative vocabulary.

• PARRY SOUND ARTICLE

One of her more colorful linguistic misfires is calling coyotes an eco-thermometer, a term that, as far as actual science is concerned, doesn’t exist in any ecological framework. Presumably, she meant indicator species, a term used for organisms that signal environmental health or degradation. Even then, slapping that label on coyotes is a stretch, given their adaptability to nearly any environment, healthy or otherwise. If coyotes were environmental thermometers, they’d always read “room temperature,” because they’re just as comfortable in pristine wilderness as they are in a county dump or behind a fast-food joint.

• GUELPH TODAY

Lesley Sampson’s use of the term "aversion conditioning" in her discussion of wildlife management risks sowing confusion, as it strays from the standard terminology rooted in behavioral science. The correct term, "aversive conditioning," describes a well-documented technique that employs an unpleasant stimulus—like loud noises or physical deterrents—to shape an animal’s behavior.In contrast, Sampson’s use of "aversion conditioning" doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Aversive conditioning typically involves direct stimuli to prompt immediate behavioral shifts, whereas processes like taste aversion—where an animal links a food source to illness—rely on passive, unconscious learning over time.When someone positions themselves as an authority on wildlife management, flubbing basic scientific terms is a glaring red flag. Such missteps don’t just undermine credibility—they signal a shaky grasp of the very concepts central to wildlife conservation.

• NIAGARA THIS WEEK

Concerns About Lesley Sampson’s Thesis

Lesley Sampson cites a 1997/98 Brock University thesis on canid pack behavior as a key part of her expertise in coyote behavior. However, this thesis is not publicly available for review. Requests to Brock University confirmed they do not have a copy in their records, and Sampson has not provided it despite multiple inquiries. Without the ability to view this thesis, the public cannot verify its content or scientific validity, which raises questions about its role in establishing her credentials. Transparency is critical for credible wildlife advocacy.If you’ve got a copy or know how to get your hands on one, send it our way

• EMAIL HERE

Aversion what?

Lesley Sampson's use of the term "aversion conditioning" is a perfect example of someone trying to sound smart while missing the mark entirely. It's like calling a toque a “head sweater”—it might sound good to a novice, but it’s wrong on every level.The actual term is aversive conditioning, which refers to using an unpleasant stimulus to modify an animal's behavior, like loud noises or projectiles. But Sampson, apparently not up to date with basic behavioral science, tosses out "aversion conditioning" like it’s a legit term.Aversion conditioning often occurs without direct confrontation usually involving passive learning. Example: associating a food source with sickness (e.g., taste aversion). The animal forms an unconscious, long-term association rather than responding to direct stimulus.If you're trying to convince people you’re an expert on wildlife management, maybe don’t flaunt your lack of understanding basic scientific terminology.

• BROCK U DIGITAL REPOSITORY

• Image Credit