When regulations, policy, and laws are changed, we expect them to be developed through transparent consultation, backed by data and science, to be publicly accountable, and to align with the values of society’s majority.
Unfortunately, an alarming pattern has emerged from the Alberta government in recent years regarding changes and updates to provincial hunting regulations and wildlife management practices. Instead of relying on science, accountability and consultation, the government has instead favoured special interests, such as trophy hunting. This undermines the standards and ethics that many conservationists and hunters alike have worked hard to uphold.
The latest round of amendments to hunting regulations came into effect on August 1st, 2025. This news was delivered incredibly quietly. With changes that are detrimental to the welfare of wildlife and pose threats to public safety, we’d expect to have seen broad and inclusive consultation.
This follows a pattern of persistently quiet updates to hunting and wildlife management practices from the Minister's office over the past two years. Exposed Wildlife Conservancy (EWC) believes this should be a concern to us all. Democracy demands that the public be given the opportunity to weigh in on decisions that impact us, but when information and opportunity are deliberately withheld, it becomes critical that we collectively speak up and demand transparency.
In these recent changes to hunting regulations, the Alberta government has legalized the use of dogs to hunt black bears, expanded baiting allowances, removed mandatory reporting for several species, authorized smaller-calibre ammunition for big game, and lowered the hunting age for holding a big game license to just 10 years old.
These updates continue to represent a stark departure from science-based, ethical wildlife management. In short, these changes are a step backward for humane hunting practices.
“When viewed as a whole with all of the other regulatory changes in the past two years, these aren’t just minor regulatory tweaks,” said Maggie Spizzirri, Executive Director at EWC. “They amount to a dismantling of ethical safeguards that exist to protect wildlife, ecological balance, and public trust.”
Despite their ecological and ethical implications, there is no public evidence that the Alberta government consulted conservation organizations, scientific experts, Indigenous communities, or the general public before introducing these changes. According to the Alberta Wilderness Association, the changes were implemented “quietly, with no public process, engagement, or communication.” This bypasses democratic norms and excludes the people most equipped to offer ecological, ethical, and cultural insight.
It is widely recognized that hound hunting of bears and other apex predators, such as cougars, puts both wildlife and dogs at extreme risk. The stress experienced by all animals involved is immense, and the practice has been outlawed in many countries due to its cruel nature.
So why, in 2025, is the Alberta government introducing a practice widely condemned by animal welfare experts and ethical hunters alike?
In an accompanying statement to the new regulations, Minister of Parks and Forestry, Todd Loewen, claims that “hunting rules and regulations reflect current scientific knowledge and align with best practices across Canada.”
This statement from the Minister contradicts both available science and Alberta’s own Wildlife Management Plan. This raises serious concerns about transparency and credibility, begging the question: where are these decisions coming from and whose interests do they serve?
The government has justified the introduction of hound hunting in some Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) as a measure to support caribou recovery. However, many of the WMUs listed do not contain active caribou populations, and there is no conclusive scientific evidence that predator culling contributes to long-term caribou population recovery.
The regulations state that “Black bear hunting with dogs is now permitted in Wildlife Management Units 344, 346, 347, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 439, 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 446, 511, 524, 525, 527 and 537 in September and October during an open season. This is being done in order to support predator management in areas where caribou recovery is a concern.”
However, while caribou are indeed a key concern in some of these WMUs, many of them do not support active caribou populations or recovery programs. So why are these WMUs included, and why was this decision made behind closed doors, without transparency or inclusive consultation?
Large carnivores are vital to ecosystem health. They help regulate prey populations, maintain social order within their species, and shape how other animals use the landscape. Hound hunting disrupts these natural systems by altering animal behaviour, fragmenting movement patterns, and selectively removing dominant individuals, often the strongest, most reproductively successful, and thus most sought-after as ‘trophies’. This destabilizes social structures, increasing the likelihood that younger, less experienced animals will move closer to human communities or target livestock.
For apex species like bears and cougars, where mothers raise their young for years, hound hunting also increases the risk of orphaning. When mothers are killed, cubs and kittens are often left behind, many of whom won’t survive without maternal care.
Prolonged chases can also separate mothers from cubs, lead to violent encounters, and desensitize wildlife to human presence, resulting in elevated conflict. All of this hugely undermines coexistence measures for apex predators.
Grizzly bears, listed as a threatened species in Alberta, are especially vulnerable to the ripple effects of hound hunting. Though they are not legally permitted to be hunted, hound-led chases increase the likelihood of unintended encounters. When dogs are released into bear habitat, often at a distance from the hunter, they cannot distinguish between black bears and grizzlies. This creates a dangerous scenario in which a threatened grizzly may be cornered, provoked, or forced into defensive behaviour. Data released by Alberta Forestry and Parks, between 2013 and 2022, show that 23 grizzlies were killed in ‘self-defence’, six were mistakenly shot and killed by hunters, and 58 were poached illegally. Hunters cannot, and therefore, should not, rely on dogs to distinguish between a legal harvest and a threatened species.
Not only are threatened species at risk, and non-target wildlife in peril, but hunting with hounds often puts the dogs themselves in serious danger. Dogs are likely to suffer severe injuries from bites, and fatal attacks are commonly reported. Beyond the hunt, dogs considered unsuitable for the field are frequently subjected to poor treatment, abandoned, or euthanized. These practices are disturbingly common and horrifically unethical.
The animals aren’t the only ones at risk from introducing dogs to the hunt. In a four-year study conducted by researchers at the University of Calgary, over half of the 92 documented bear attacks analyzed were caused by dogs. It’s not uncommon to hear stories from hunters claiming they were forced to shoot a grizzly in self-defence, but when circumstances leading to the attack are assessed, the patterns that emerge highlight how hunting behaviours increase proximity, reduce visibility, and mimic predator threats, all of which elevate the chance of aggressive bear responses. Add dogs to the mix, and the risk of conflict escalates rapidly. In this way, hound hunting doesn’t just increase suffering for wildlife; it amplifies the likelihood of violent conflict across the board.
Just last year, a man was seriously injured and a grizzly was killed in Elkford, B.C. It is suggested that the two men were tracking what they believed to be a black bear with hounds. When the dogs attacked the grizzly, the man shot the defensive bear, causing fatal injuries.
Encounters such as these often end in injury or death for the grizzly, the dogs, or the hunter, and are frequently cited as justification for “defensive kills.” In reality, these conflicts are avoidable. Regulatory rollouts that allow hound hunting in areas where grizzlies are present risk undermining years of recovery efforts and place an already struggling population in further jeopardy.
By removing .22 calibre centrefire cartridges (like .223, .22-250, .22 Creedmoor) from the list of prohibited weapons for big game, Alberta is now allowing hunters to use smaller-calibre bullets on large animals, including bears and cougars.
These calibres were previously restricted because smaller-calibre bullets may not penetrate deep enough to cause immediate death, especially in larger animals. This increases the chance of prolonged suffering, slow death, or animals escaping with injuries.
Studies have shown that using underpowered ammunition increases the risk of non-lethal shots, leading to animals that are wounded and never recovered, something both conservationists and ethical hunters want to avoid.
This move signals a shift away from the principle of minimizing suffering, toward lower ethical standards in wildlife management and hunting regulations
Perhaps one of the most concerning changes is the lowering of the legal age limit to obtain a big game hunting licence to just 10 years old.
The age of criminal responsibility in Canada is 12 years old, reflecting a societal understanding, supported by legal and psychological perspectives, that children under this age have not yet developed a sufficient level of cognitive and emotional maturity to understand the consequences of their actions and be held responsible for them.
To be clear, most 10-year-olds do not have the fully formed cognitive ability to understand or reason with complex ethics. Children as young as 10 are still developing the mental capacity for proper planning, evaluating situations, and understanding the consequences of their actions, which are crucial for safe and ethical hunting.
In addition, Alberta regulations allow youth with a federal minors permit to hunt without adult supervision. This raises serious safety concerns, not only for the young hunters themselves, but also for other people using the land, for the wildlife, and the environment. Younger hunters may be more likely to make mistakes due to limited experience and understanding of the rules. Without proper oversight, the risk of injury, unsafe firearm use, or unethical harvesting can increase significantly.
So why has the legal age been lowered? What prompted this change? Who benefits from this?
In a world where we routinely restrict the viewing of movies and games based on their depiction of violence and killing, for the healthy cognitive development of children, it is astounding that Alberta’s government would lower the legal hunting age. We must ask ourselves, if it is internationally recognized that a child below the age of 14 should be shielded from certain language and violence, why is Alberta encouraging children to participate in witnessing an animal suffer through a prolonged chase or violent death?
There is no pause. There is no mute button. This is real life. These are children.
Alberta’s reputation as a world-class destination for iconic wildlife and stunning wilderness is hard to maintain when government decisions so clearly undermine the very values that draw people here.
These decisions not only harm individual animals, but they also erode the ecological integrity and ethical standards that responsible wildlife stewardship demands. One related and particularly concerning example in these recent changes is the quiet reclassification of hunting categories. The province has removed the terms “trophy” and “non-trophy” and replaced them with “Class I” and “Class II”, a change that obscures meaning for the public and downplays the controversial nature of trophy hunting. The vast majority of Albertans oppose trophy hunting, but this new language makes it harder for the public to understand what is actually being permitted and promoted.
This isn’t transparency, it’s camouflage, and it’s time to call it what it is: the Alberta government is now allowing and promoting trophy hunting.
EWC is calling on Alberta’s government to:
Please read the full extent of the changes made in the Minister's letter: https://albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/changes.html
This isn’t just a conservation issue; it’s a public accountability issue.
These changes should concern all of us, regardless of where we stand on hunting. We all have a stake in how wildlife is managed. This is about the integrity of our institutions, the safety of our communities, and the kind of province Alberta wants to be known for. You don’t have to be a conservationist to feel that something here just doesn’t sit right.
You can make a difference:
✍️ Contact your MLA and call on them to demand the public release of consultation records and scientific evidence behind the 2025 regulation changes.
✍️ Write or call Premier Danielle Smith's office to voice your concern over the province’s continued push toward hunting practices that disregard conservation science, public interest and Alberta’s own wildlife management science. Wildlife management programs and hunting regulations must be data-backed and publicly accountable.
premier@gov.ab.ca.
780-427-2251 (Edmonton)
310-0000 (toll-free in Alberta)
780-427-2711 (outside Alberta)
🙌 Support advocacy work through donations, volunteering, or community outreach.
💬 Stay informed, share and engage. Public pressure shapes policy. Your voice matters.
Together, we can protect Alberta’s wildlife and ensure hunting regulations and wildlife policy are guided by science, not special interests.
Now is the time to step up and take action.
Alberta Government. (2025). 2025 hunting regulation changes. Alberta Regulations. https://albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/changes.html
Grignolio S, Merli E, Bongi P, Ciuti S, Apollonio M. 2011. Effects of hunting with hounds on a non-target species living on the edge of a protected area. Biological Conservation 144:641–649.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.022
Stillfried M, Belant J, Svoboda N, Beyer D, Kramer-Schadt S. 2015. When top predators become prey: Black bears alter movement behaviour in response to hunting pressure. Behavioural Processes 120:30–39.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.08.003
Olson ER, Treves A, Wydeven AP, Ventura S. 2014. Landscape predictors of wolf attacks on bear-hunting dogs in Wisconsin, USA. Wildlife Research 41:584–597.https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14043
Burns, L., & Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales. (2000). Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales. London: Home Office. Retrieved from https://teamfox.org.uk/31-what-s-new/23-the-burns-inquiry
Winter, S. Y, Van Vuren, D. H, Vickers, T. W, & Dellinger, J. A. (2024). Response of Mountain Lions to Hazing: Does Exposure to Dogs Result in Displacement? Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 31. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8hm0k87f
Grignolio, S., Merli, E., Bongi, P., Ciuti, S., & Apollonio, M. (2010). Effects of hunting with hounds on a non-target species living on the edge of a protected area. Biological Conservation, 144(1), 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.022
Treves, A., & Menefee, L. (2022). Adverse effects of hunting with hounds on participating animals and human bystanders. bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory). https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.16.504031
Ladny, R. T., & Meyer, L. (2019). Traumatized Witnesses: Review of Childhood exposure to animal cruelty. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 13(4), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-019-00277-x
Ghasemi, B., & Kyle, G. T. (2023). Hunters’ opposition to harmful hunting practices on ecosystems: values, beliefs, norms, and identities. Journal of Wildlife Management, 87(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22449
Walker, J. B. (n.d.). Hunting a Home: The abandonment and neglect of hunting dogs. Digital Commons @ VCCS. https://commons.vccs.edu/exigence/vol2/iss1/5/
Lafferty, D. J. R., Trujillo, S. M., Hilderbrand, G. V., Sears, A., Christian, P., Payer, D., & Hake, M. (2024). Bear baiting risks and mitigations: An assessment using expert opinion analyses. PLoS ONE, 19(11), e0312192. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312192
Obbard, M. E., Howe, E. J., Wall, L. L., Allison, B., Black, R., Davis, P., Dix-Gibson, L., Gatt, M., & Hall, M. N. (2014). Relationships among food availability, harvest, and human–bear conflict at landscape scales in Ontario, Canada. Ursus, 25(2), 98. https://doi.org/10.2192/ursus-d-13-00018.1
