Exposed Wildlife Conservancy acknowledges the growing concern expressed by the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) regarding human-grizzly bear conflict and community safety across the province.
In 2024, the RMA called on the Government of Alberta to increase funding for proven non-lethal coexistence measures and to provide resources to strengthen frontline response capacity. Despite this request, the provincial response did not include increased funding or meaningful expansion of support, leaving municipalities without the tools proven to effectively address rising conflict concerns.
In 2026, the RMA has expanded its recommendations to include both the reinstatement of a grizzly bear hunt and the creation of a dedicated funding program to support grizzly bear research, conflict-mitigation efforts, and community safety initiatives.
While EWC does not support the reinstatement of a grizzly bear hunt, we recognize the urgency reflected in these resolutions and the very real challenges faced by rural communities. We commend the RMA for continuing to advocate for proactive, non-lethal conflict mitigation measures that are effective and evidence-based1,2, and we strongly support the call for dedicated funding for local coexistence programs.
Rural communities have consistently raised concerns and requested targeted support to protect both people and wildlife, including increased funding for the Conservation Officer Service and problem wildlife specialists. However, these requests have not been meaningfully addressed by the ministry.
The RMA’s inclusion in their recommendation that a “dedicated funding program include stable contributions to organizations focused on grizzly bear-related research and management,” speaks to the importance of continued investment from the Province.
Coexistence is not a single action, but a multi-layered, ongoing process that requires sustained funding, long-term planning, and strong community commitment1. A substantial body of research1,2 demonstrates that proactive strategies such as attractant management, electric fencing, range riders, and public education consistently reduce human-wildlife conflict when properly implemented and supported. Continued investment in these approaches represents the most reliable path forward for improving safety outcomes for both people and wildlife. While EWC appreciates that coexistence and data gathering programs have received funding in the past, many have not been in operation for over a decade, highlighting the need for renewed and consistent support.
It’s disappointing that rural communities expressed continued concern with requests for specific, proven support that protects both people and wildlife, yet were ignored and have been forced to resort to requests for lethal measures in order to be heard.
The introduction of the Wildlife Management Responder Network in 2025, which allows for the lethal removal of bears deemed “problem wildlife,” reflects an increasingly concerning approach to conflict management.
Current evidence does not support hunting as a reliable strategy for reducing human-wildlife conflict3,4,5. Peer-reviewed research on large carnivores demonstrates that lethal removal can disrupt social structures and, in some cases, increase conflict4,6. Reopening a hunt under the rationale of conflict reduction would therefore lack evidentiary support and fail to meet the standard of demonstrable conservation or public safety benefit required for management actions affecting a threatened species.
EWC acknowledges that there are situations in which individual grizzly bears may pose a significant and immediate risk to human safety, and that lethal removal may, at times, be necessary as a last resort. However, these actions should remain targeted, evidence-based, and limited, rather than forming the foundation of broader population-level management strategies.
Lethal, population-level approaches do not address the root causes of human-wildlife conflict, and for a grizzly bear hunt to meaningfully reduce conflict, harvest levels would need to be high enough to pose a risk to the long-term survival and recovery of the species. Given that proven coexistence strategies are available, this presents a clear and unacceptable trade-off, particularly given that grizzly bears remain a Threatened species in Alberta.
We also note that some of the supporting rationale referenced in calls for expanded lethal control relies on outdated or insufficient data. Grizzly bear research cited from the Waterton region is now more than 15 years old, and there is a lack of current, robust population data to support broad management decisions. In the absence of up-to-date scientific evidence, anecdotal observations, while valuable for identifying emerging concerns, cannot serve as the primary basis for policy decisions affecting a threatened species. Sound wildlife management must be grounded in current, peer-reviewed science and comprehensive monitoring.
Recent environmental conditions further highlight the complexity of human-bear conflict5. In the summer of 2025, both the Rocky Mountains and British Columbia’s Central Coast experienced challenges with the availability and timing of key grizzly bear food sources. In Alberta’s Rocky Mountain region, buffaloberries, an essential seasonal food for grizzlies, fruited earlier than usual, potentially altering bear movement patterns and increasing the likelihood of human interaction, including in areas such as Bear Management Area 6 identified in the RMA resolution. These types of ecological shifts underscore that conflict is often driven by environmental variability and resource availability, rather than simply population size.
We are concerned that framing wildlife as “problem animals” shifts attention away from the underlying drivers of conflict. In most cases, these conflicts arise from human expansion into wildlife habitat, habitat fragmentation8, and the availability of anthropogenic attractants9,10. While only a small proportion of grizzly bears are involved in conflicts, broad-scale lethal policies can have disproportionate impacts on population stability. Especially vulnerable species with low reproductive rates, like grizzly bears.
Alberta is at a critical decision point in how it manages human-wildlife interactions. Long-term safety for communities, livestock, and wildlife depends on a proactive approach that prioritizes prevention, education, and coexistence. Exposed Wildlife Conservancy urges the Government of Alberta to fund long-term coexistence initiatives, to implement Alberta’s own Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, and expand outreach programs that support communities living alongside grizzly bears. We also call on decision-makers to ensure that management actions are guided by current scientific evidence and to reject the reinstatement of a general grizzly bear hunt as a conflict management tool.
We remain committed to working collaboratively with communities, policymakers, and conservation partners to advance solutions that are grounded in science and focused on long-term outcomes. Addressing the root causes of conflict, rather than relying on reactive measures, is essential to ensuring a future where both people and wildlife can coexist safely.
Please see accompanying press release here: www.exposedwc.org/news/pr-coexistence-funding-over-grizzly-hunt
