Whether we like it or not, every decision about wildlife begins with people.
That can sometimes get lost in conversations about conservation. We talk about populations, habitat, policy, and management, but ultimately, every one of those things comes back to people: what we value, what we fear, what we understand, and what we are willing to do differently.
Public attitudes influence policy, funding, community planning, and how we respond when conflicts occur. Yet our conversations about apex predators are often shaped by headlines or personal experiences rather than evidence.
It’s easy to talk about "the public" as though it’s one clean-cut group with one simple opinion, but it isn't. People bring their own experiences, knowledge, fears, and relationships with wildlife to the table. For many people, their relationship with apex predators can be complicated, to say the least.
Good conservation needs to make room for that complexity.
So, we decided to ask some big questions. That’s kind of our thing.
Exposed Wildlife Conservancy commissioned a survey of 1,506 adults in British Columbia and Alberta through the Angus Reid Forum to better understand how people actually feel about living alongside grizzly bears, black bears, cougars, and wolves.
We wanted to know what concerns people, what they value, what they believe causes conflict and, perhaps most importantly, what would help them feel more confident sharing the landscape with wildlife, and if the public is willing to do more, are we giving them the opportunity to do it?.
Honestly, we didn’t know what to expect, as assumptions are often misplaced in the world of wildlife conservation, but what we did hear was extremely encouraging.
A strong majority of people recognize the importance of apex predators, with more than nine-in-ten respondents agreeing that apex predators play a key role in healthy ecosystems.
People aren't simply asking for wildlife to be protected. They're saying they are willing to participate in coexistence, and they're asking for the knowledge, resources, and professional support to make it possible.
Providing that support requires good science, honest conversations, and a continued willingness to listen to the experiences of people living on the landscape.
For statistics and a complete deep dive on the survey, please see the full report, but for now, here’s the gist.
The core message we heard throughout the survey was consistent: While people recognize the risks associated with living alongside apex predators, they also believe coexistence is achievable when communities have the knowledge and tools they need.
People are telling us they are willing to take responsibility for their part in coexistence, with eighty-four percent actively seeking information from wildlife organizations, governments, and other trusted sources. But they need clear information, practical tools, and the support to put that knowledge into use before conflict happens.
At the same time, respondents expressed a strong desire for governments to invest in non-lethal, prevention-focused approaches. When asked about reducing conflict, only 15% selected killing predators as the most effective approach. Many respondents instead supported education, prevention, and practical guidance over reactive measures.
The willingness to act personally was equally striking, with nearly eight-in-ten respondents saying they would change their own behaviour if they had clearer guidance on how to live safely alongside apex predators.
Essentially, people want to know what they can do, what support is available, and how communities can reduce the likelihood of conflict before it happens. An impressive ninety-one percent said most encounters between people and wildlife can be avoided when people have the right knowledge and take appropriate actions. We couldn’t agree more.
Key findings
It was unsurprising but still valuable to learn that respondents who regularly spent time in areas where apex predators live reported feeling more knowledgeable and more comfortable responding to encounters.
What might surprise you is that, compared with metropolitan residents, rural respondents did not hold dramatically different values toward wildlife. What differed was a greater familiarity with these species and a stronger understanding of what sharing landscapes with them requires.
Black bears may be the survey's clearest example of what an impact familiarity can have. They're the animals people are most likely to have encountered, yet they're also among the animals people perceive as least threatening.
Confidence does not come from having fewer predators on the landscape, but from knowing how to reduce the likelihood of conflict and having practical experience navigating shared spaces safely.
This knowledge can come from people who live and work alongside wildlife every day, from researchers who continue to study these species over the span of decades, and from Traditional Ecological Knowledge, built through generations of observation and reciprocal relationships with the natural world. Together, these ways of knowing help create a more complete understanding of coexistence than any one perspective could ever provide.
We see this firsthand with communities actively pursuing coexistence. They acknowledge the challenges that come with living alongside large carnivores, working to understand them, whilst developing and sharing knowledge, habits and respect through experience.
There was another key theme running through the responses. We found that people want more safeguards in place to prevent conflict from reaching the point of no return.
Participants frequently identified human behaviour as a contributor to conflict and highlighted education, attractant management, and other proactive non-lethal measures as important parts of the solution.
Interestingly, residents of Alberta showed significantly more confidence than BC residents that conflicts can be resolved without lethal measures.
However, a recurring sentiment across the board was frustration at wildlife being killed after a situation has escalated, when earlier intervention might have prevented the conflict in the first place.
Respondents frequently criticized responses as overly lethal, delayed, or not sufficiently focused on prevention, with wildlife often paying the price for human mistakes.
Prevention requires investment. It requires education, accessible information, wildlife considered infrastructure, trained responders, and communities that know where to turn when they need help.
It also requires governments to have the capacity to respond effectively when prevention does not work.
The finding that 61% of respondents believe trained wildlife professionals should respond to dangerous wildlife situations is a useful reminder of that responsibility. Communities should not be left to manage serious wildlife encounters without adequate support, and wildlife should not pay the price when the systems designed to prevent conflict are under-resourced.
The findings become particularly interesting when we look at how people feel about each species.
Black bears represent the most successful model of coexistence in the public mindset. Practical knowledge is strongest in regard to black bears, particularly around attractant management. This suggests that repeated exposure, combined with clear and widely communicated guidance, has translated into both understanding and behaviour.
Grizzly bears and cougars generated the highest levels of perceived risk, but that concern did not translate into a rejection of coexistence. Seventy-three percent of respondents said people and grizzlies can safely coexist, while 75% said they were confident conflicts could be resolved without killing the bear. This suggests grizzly bears could be a critical test case for building trust in coexistence strategies.
Meanwhile, cougars reveal an interesting gap between belief and confidence. Three-quarters of respondents believe people and cougars can safely coexist, and the same proportion believe conflicts can be resolved without killing. But only 12% said they would feel calm during a cougar encounter, demonstrating a huge opportunity for education and community support.
Wolves were among the species people perceived as least threatening. Eighty-two percent believe people and wolves can safely coexist, while 80% are confident conflicts can be resolved without killing. Yet only 21% said they would feel calm during an encounter, suggesting that even where people are broadly supportive of coexistence, there is still a need for practical knowledge and confidence.
Taken together, these findings reinforce that lethal measures are not the desired default response and that there is a strong appetite for solutions such as education that prevent conflict, build tolerance, and allow people and wildlife to confidently share landscapes safely.
For us, this is where science, storytelling and advocacy come together. The research gives us a clearer picture of where people are starting from. Our job is to help turn that willingness to coexist into practical action, while advocating for the policies, resources and prevention measures that make coexistence possible.
This survey has given us a snapshot of where people are today, and they may be further ahead than the systems designed to support them.
So, what do we need to build around people so that coexistence isn't just something they support in a survey, but something they can actually do?
First, we (and that’s the collective ‘we’ of government and organizations) need to listen to what people are telling us, figure out where the gaps are, and build better ways for communities to navigate the difficult moments that come with sharing space with wildlife.
We can start with education, tools, and enforcement.
Education is seen as the clearest path to coexistence, and there is a reason storytelling sits alongside science and stewardship at EWC. A statistic can tell us that experience changes how people feel about wildlife, but it’s the story that helps us understand why. They are part of how people build knowledge, confidence and perspective, and we believe they deserve a place in the conversation alongside research and data.
That is what we hope to keep doing with this work: bringing science, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, lived experience and storytelling into the same conversation, and using all of them to help communities find practical ways forward.
The survey has given us a lot to think about, along with some renewed hope.
It provides an important foundation for our continued work. It shows that there is public interest in practical guidance, evidence-based approaches, and thoughtful conversations about how we share our landscapes with apex predators. But perhaps most importantly, it shows that people care about these animals, and they understand that coexistence comes with responsibility, one they are willing to shoulder with support.
There’s a long journey ahead of us, but we will continue bringing together science, stories and stewardship to support communities with understanding and to advance approaches that give both people and wildlife a better chance of success.
We don’t know what the future holds, but knowing that so many people are willing to be part of that future feels like a pretty good place to start.
These are the findings of a survey commissioned by Exposed Wildlife Conservancy from February 27 to March 10, 2026, with a sample of 1,506 adults in British Columbia and Alberta who are members of the Angus Reid Forum. The survey was conducted in English. The total sample was weighted to reflect the general population in British Columbia and Alberta. All respondents were 18+ years of age.
The Angus Reid Forum is Canada's most trusted online public opinion community, consisting of engaged residents across the country who complete surveys on topical issues that matter to all Canadians.
