A rebuttal to an op-ed in The Globe & Mail
By Mark Hall
Respectful public dialogue is essential when discussing grizzly bear management in British Columbia. Unfortunately, the recent op-ed by Dr. Chris Darimont and Dr. Paul Paquet, “Grizzly bear hunting is no way to solve conflict between humans and bears,” published Dec. 4th in The Globe & Mail, does not advance that goal. While I do not speak on behalf of the BC Wildlife Federation, whom the authors target, their piece contains omissions and selective interpretations that deserve clarification so British Columbians can engage with the full picture.
Data Selection Matters
The authors rely on fatality statistics from 1960 to 2014 to argue that grizzly bear attacks are not a significant concern. More importantly, the 1960–2014 dataset excludes the most relevant trend: the high number of victims in recent years. Western Canada saw nine attacks resulting in thirteen casualties in 2024–2025 alone, including ten people directly affected in BC during 2025. BC is now the most dangerous region in the country for grizzly bear attacks, surpassing Alberta. The discrepancy between an average of one fatality per year across 54 years of an old data set and ten victims in 2025 highlight how data selection and interpretation shapes narratives and ultimately, policy.
The 2025 numbers matter. They show that human–grizzly interactions are problematic. Yet BC has never defined what constitutes an acceptable level of risk beyond the framework used by the Conservation Officer Service when responding to individual incidents. The province has no area-based thresholds for dangerous human–bear interactions. Without clear goals, we cannot determine whether current attack levels constitute a “problem” or warrant action. This is a fundamental gap in wildlife governance: if we don’t define success, we cannot measure failure. Success should be set at zero life-threatening encounters and monitored much like the aviation industry does for near misses as a way to prevent accidents.
The Hunting Debate: What the Evidence Actually Says
The authors argue that hunting has not been scientifically proven to reduce human–bear conflict. While technically correct, the statement is incomplete. The hypothesis has never been rigorously tested. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Prior to the 2018 ban, BC’s grizzly harvest rates were intentionally low to avoid affecting population dynamics—not to influence conflict rates. The former Limited Entry Hunt (LEH) system was designed to support sustainable use, not conflict mitigation. The LEH system may have helped reduce dangerous encounters in small, localized areas by harvesting bold or aggressive individuals, however, the fact stands that the LEH system of managing grizzly bears was biologically conservative. The consensus in British Columbia is that hunting practices predominantly targeted older male grizzly bears; however, approximately one third of the annual harvest consisted of females. It is also noted that female grizzly bears are typically responsible for a higher number of attacks compared to larger, older males. However, as stated earlier, the question of whether hunting reduces dangerous encounters has not been well-researched.
What the authors overlook is that management objectives determine management tools. If BC established high-conflict zones, set explicit risk-reduction targets, and designed sustainable use hunts specifically for conflict mitigation, paired with rigorous scientific monitoring, the province could become a global leader in demonstrating how sustainable use might enhance human safety while maintaining healthy bear populations. This is not speculative. As world-renowned grizzly bear expert Dr. Bruce McLellan explained to us in episode 100 of The Hunter Conservationist, scientists understand grizzly population dynamics well enough to manage them toward almost any objective. Should there be special management areas placing human safety on equal footing with grizzly bear protection?
The Decline of Science-Based Management
Before 2018, BC’s grizzly bear program was grounded in peer-reviewed science, with multiple experts contributing to population monitoring, genetic research, and harvest planning. After the ban, the province reduced its grizzly science staff from four experts to one—working on grizzlies only part-time. No comprehensive government-led research program remains. Sustainable use hunting played a vital role in holistic grizzly bear conservation in the province, and while it may appear contradictory, bear management through sustainable use hunting can contribute to their conservation.
Meanwhile, even with a hunting ban, hunters remain one of the only reliable sources of conservation funding. Since 2018, a conservation surcharge on hunting and related user licences has generated $770,000 for grizzly research. Funding could be even higher with sustainable use hunting, especially if a special auction license—used successfully for mountain sheep conservation—was created. Bear-viewing operations, which were expected to contribute to conservation after the 2017 ban, still have no legal requirement to do so. Bear viewing and sustainable hunting can coexist when managed locally in a collaborate fashion, and there is likely strong support within the viewing sector for a mandatory conservation surcharge. The sector simply needs a champion to drive that change.
Correlation Is Not Causation
The authors cite a 2016 cougar study to suggest that hunting increases conflict. Yet the study demonstrated only a correlation: hunters typically harvested mature males (as directed by wildlife managers), while conflict-killed cougars were usually dispersing juveniles. The narrative that “trophy hunting” causes conflict is not supported by their data. Drawing causal conclusions from this pattern is statistically invalid and discouraged in academic research.
Over years of reviewing research by these authors, I have observed a pattern of anti-hunting studies being published and then self-cited to reinforce their perspectives—a practice known as citation bias. Citation bias is considered a questionable research practice and, in some cases, gross scientific misconduct. A significant number of wildlife experts have contributed papers to journals and other scientific publications responding to research presented by these authors. This raises a legitimate question: can Dr. Darimont and Dr. Paquet offer objective perspectives on future grizzly bear policy in BC that respect rural community perspectives that differ from their own? Or will they continue to claim moral imperialism?
Local Knowledge Is Not Anecdote
The authors suggest that low pink salmon returns and forest fires pushed bears into Bella Coola. Yet a resident reported that they have experienced years of grizzly problems—including this year, despite a strong salmon run. They described dominant males occupying river habitats, sows with cubs avoiding traditional feeding areas, and more bears of all ages spending time in town. Local knowledge is not anecdotal noise; it is essential data. Communities living with grizzlies every day deserve to have their observations taken seriously.
Indigenous Perspectives Are Diverse
Another common narrative is that Indigenous Nations broadly oppose grizzly hunting. The reality is far more complex. Some Nations oppose the hunt, but many others—including the Tahltan (whose territory covers 11% of BC) and the Blueberry River First Nation—actively support and participate in sustainable use grizzly hunting. Reports indicate that a large coalition of First Nations has expressed support for reinstating science-based management, including regulated hunting. Many Indigenous people work in the guide-outfitting sector and have been economically harmed by the ban.
If reconciliation is a provincial priority, then the views of all Nations, not only those aligned with a particular advocacy group, must be respected.
A Better Path Forward
BC’s current one-size-fits-all policy is failing both people and bears. Around the world, community-based wildlife management boards have proven effective in regions with high human–wildlife conflict, including Canada’s Arctic and Africa. These models empower local communities, integrate Indigenous governance, reflect regional ecological realities, and balance conservation with human and livestock safety.
BC should adopt a similar approach. Local grizzly bear management boards, aligned within bear population units, Indigenous territories, and centered around similar socio-econmic rural communities, would bring decision-making closer to the people who live with the consequences and understand grizzlies best.
Conclusion
British Columbians deserve a conversation grounded in complete data, transparent reasoning, and genuine engagement with the communities most affected. We can protect grizzly bears and protect people. These goals are not mutually exclusive. What we need now is not more polarization, but a renewed commitment to science, local knowledge, and management systems that reflect the diverse values of this province.
Community-based wildlife boards should empower rural residents to implement solutions, including coexistence strategies and sustainable use hunting—that make sense for the places they call home.