Wildlife Officials spend years training on how to safely deal with problem wildlife. The most specialized aspect of this training is dealing with conflict grizzly bears. Wildlife officials that respond to bears that have killed livestock, caused property damage or injured / killed people are typically senior staff with years of training specifically for these types of incidents. These incidents often involve multiple staff all with this high level of training. This is, arguably, one of the most complex and potentially dangerous duties that wildlife officials are asked to perform.
It is unreasonable and potentially dangerous to expect a lone hunter to embark on euthanizing a free roaming grizzly bear with a history of aggressiveness and conflict as outlined above. Having a WIN card and hunting upland game birds or deer on the prairie does not set you up to be able to safely and effectively hunt a conflict grizzly bear. Selecting hunters on a lottery without any consideration of their capabilities in the field does not bode well for bears, the public and possibly the hunters themselves. Using the Ministers example of a bear in a school yard highlights the complexities of this work. How can the Minister suggest that an authorized, successful applicant locate and safely dispatch a bear frequenting a school yard in an urban setting? This requires a very specific type of training that hunters simply do not have. This scenario is exactly why we have professional, trained Officers to deal with these types of potentially dangerous situations.
Suggesting that this Program involving grizzly bears is similar to what will be done with conflict elk is not comparable. Asking someone to shoot elk in a hayfield as they feed on hay bales is not the same as pursuing a grizzly bear through the chest high willows of the Waterton Front.
Some landowners have indicated that they are not supportive of allowing access onto their properties for someone they don’t know to try and kill the bear that is causing them conflict.
The possibility of targeting a non conflict bear, especially if it is 24 hours after the conflict has occurred, is a real possibility. There have been many situations where wildlife officials have caught multiple non conflict bears during an investigation before capturing the offending bear. How is the hunter expected to know if they are targeting the offending bear or not?
When a decision is made to euthanize a grizzly bear, it is done in a very controlled fashion. The bear is almost always captured in a culvert trap or foot snare prior to euthanizing. In most cases the bear is tranquilized, transported to a safe place in a culvert trap and then euthanized while remaining tranquilized. This ensures the animal is euthanized humanely and does not present any unnecessary safety concerns; it prevents a free roaming, injured bear from endangering wildlife officials and members of the public.
The Minister refers to 20 conflict grizzly bears killed per year. This is an inflated number. Between 2009 and 2018, 25 grizzly bears were killed because of conflict concerns in the province. Numbers are unavailable post 2018 but the numbers are not expected to have increased ten fold since 2018.
The Program is focused on bears getting into conflict with people. These bears will be managed according to the provincial grizzly bear response guide regardless of who is responding to the incident (Wildlife Officials or Wildlife Responders). As such, this Program should not affect overall grizzly bear numbers in Alberta. But that should not be considered an endorsement of this Program
Much of the human bear conflict that exists is preventable. Securing or removing food attractants solves the vast majority of conflict with bears (and other wildlife). This includes the use of electric fence, metal grain bins, bear proof grain bin doors, bear resistant garbage cans, municipal bylaws that prohibit attractants such as fruit trees and birdfeeders at certain times of the year. By instituting these measures the majority of conflict would not occur in the first place which would free up wildlife officials to focus their time on issues other than catching and removing bears. Proactive human bear conflict management is one of the key recommendations’ highlighted in the first (2008) and subsequent (2020) Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan but little has been done to implement these proactive measures.
The Plan also recommends that Human Wildlife Conflict Specialists be employed in each Bear Management Area in Alberta. The one position that was in place for southern Alberta has not been refilled since that person retired in 2022. The other BMAs have never had a similar type position. This type of position is not a ‘one man show’ as articulated by the Minister. They work with landowners, communities and municipalities to help create local programs to reduce human bear conflict specific to the local area. They also help facilitate funding opportunities within and outside of government to help run these local programs. This proactive type of work is not typically being carried out by Fish and Wildlife Officers and biologists who are generally in ‘react’ mode putting out fires.
These proactive types of programs that, if implemented, have a significant effect on conflict reduction thereby reducing public safety concerns, incidents of property damage and keeping bears alive. A win win for all concerned. By reducing conflict Albertans and more specifically , those landowners whose land is critical to grizzly bear Recovery will become more tolerant of bears making coexistence that much more possible.
