Grizzly bear conflict is back in the headlines, and once again the province is being told that “this is the new normal”—that recent attacks near Bella Coola, Cranbrook, and Cochrane prove we’re losing control, that conflicts have doubled, and that ending the grizzly hunt in 2017 unleashed a wave of “problem bears.”
It’s an attention-grabbing narrative. But it’s only half the story—and both sides of the debate are missing key pieces.
Let’s be clear: grizzly encounters do happen, and every injury matters. Outdoor enthusiasts—especially in the Elk Valley—are legitimately concerned about their safety. Grizzlies are powerful, unpredictable wildlife, and coexistence comes with real challenges.
But despite the headlines, fatal or severe attacks in B.C. remain extremely rare, averaging less than one per year for decades. At the same time, backcountry use is way up, more people carry phones that record every encounter, and residents are quicker than ever to report sightings. Rising call volumes to the Conservation Officer Service reflect awareness and reporting—not a sudden spike in aggression. A COS call is not an attack. Most calls are sightings, not conflicts.
Some argue that reinstating a grizzly hunt would solve everything. But the science simply doesn’t support that. Trophy hunting does not selectively remove food-conditioned or habituated bears. It removes random individuals while leaving the real drivers of conflict—unsecured attractants—unchanged.
Without an integrated approach that includes:
• attractant management,
• risk mitigation,
• education,
• community funding, and
• more Conservation Officer capacity,
• a hunt would do little to reduce the situations that actually lead to dangerous encounters.
On the other end of the spectrum, dismissing people’s fears or downplaying the dangers is equally unproductive. Grizzly bears can be lethal. Outdoor users are encountering them more often, and many feel the risk is rising. This deserves respect and honest discussion—not minimization.
If we refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of those who live, work, and recreate in bear country, we drive the conversation toward extremes instead of solutions.
Across B.C.—and especially here in the Elk Valley—the proven tools for conflict reduction are clear:
• securing garbage and attractants
• creating wildlife-smart communities
• education for hikers, hunters, and dog owners
• clear seasonal trail signage and closures
• protecting habitat and travel corridors
• adequately funded conservation officers and community programs
These strategies are backed by decades of research, and they’ve reduced conflict everywhere they’ve been applied seriously.
The grizzly hunt didn’t end on a whim, the ban wasn’t “unscientific”—and reinstating it won’t solve this. It reflected public values, Indigenous leadership, economic considerations, and the scientific consensus that hunting does not meaningfully reduce human-bear conflict.
Reframing the debate as “hunt or be mauled” undermines the real discussion B.C. needs to have.
Living in bear country requires awareness, education, and constant effort. It also requires honest conversation—free from fear, slogans, and political theatre.
Grizzly bears are part of what makes the Elk Valley wild. But keeping communities safe doesn’t come from extreme positions. It comes from evidence-based management, practical tools, and a shared commitment to coexistence.
That’s the real path forward—and it’s the one B.C. needs to stay focused on.
Photo: Ania Tuzel
