Skip to content

Bear deaths highlight difference in policies

Almost 100 bears have been killed or relocated out of the Canmore region of the Bow Valley over the past 20 years compared to just six bears destroyed in Banff National Park.
25bear148
Grizzly 148 grazes on greenery at the junction of Vermilion Lakes Road and Mount Norquay Road in Banff. RMO FILE PHOTO

Almost 100 bears have been killed or relocated out of the Canmore region of the Bow Valley over the past 20 years compared to just six bears destroyed in Banff National Park.

The Bow Valley wildlife co-existence report concluded the need to move bears out of their home ranges wouldn’t be needed as often if most of its 28 recommendations focusing on reducing the probability and severity of encounters are implemented.

It was the movements and management last year of female grizzly bear 148 – shot dead by a hunter after she was translocated from her home range following daily encounters with people – that highlighted the challenges wildlife face in a busy and developed valley managed by different agencies.

The practice of moving bears out of their home range is no longer used in Banff based on the belief it is more or less a death sentence, but translocations occur on Alberta provincial lands as an alternative to killing the animal on-site.

Parks Canada officials say translocations have low success rates because of challenges faced by bears in establishing themselves in new areas due to competition, forage or denning, for example.

As well, they say, there are animal care concerns with translocations and limited geography in which to move an animal, so it has a reasonable chance of not encountering similar problems.

“Translocation is a tool within our policy, but we haven’t used it in 20 years,” said Bill Hunt, resource conservation manager for Banff National Park who sat on the task force’s technical working group.

“We have preferred to proactively manage bears and, more often, manage people prior to getting to that stage. For example, doing things like closures.”

The province has destroyed 19 black bears and one grizzly bear in the Bow Valley over the past 20 years. The grizzly that was destroyed, a four-year-old male known as number 99, was the one that killed Isabelle Dubé in June 2005 as she jogged near Silvertip.

In addition, 66 black bears and 12 grizzly bears have been moved out of the Bow Valley over the same time frame. By comparison, Banff has destroyed six black bears and translocated none.

On provincial lands, decisions to kill or translocate an animal are evaluated on a case by case basis by evaluating different factors, including the nature, frequency and severity of animal behaviours.

The province points to the fact that not all bears are translocated based on an incident, pointing to the case in 2016 in which a black bear that swatted a female mountain biker on the south side of the valley was not shipped out.

“We didn’t action that bear. It’s very situationally dependent,” said Paul Frame, the province’s carnivore specialist. “We’re trying to keep Albertans safe for one, and we don’t translocate a bear until it’s gotten to the point where we feel that’s necessary.”

The Bow Valley is a mosaic of federal, provincial, municipal and privately-owned lands. As a result, wide-ranging animals like wolves and bears cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries on a seasonal, or even daily, basis.

In the case of grizzly bears, researchers have said the best chance of persistence must include provincial lands and national parks and requires a cooperative and coordinated approach across agencies.

The task force’s technical working group concluded that maintaining and restoring wildlife corridor effectiveness continues to be a challenge throughout the Bow Valley, especially in the face of increasing human use and expanding development.

Many wildlife species require secure habitat away from human disturbance to feed, rest, reproduce, and move, but people also heavily use some wildlife corridors and habitat patches to bike, run or walk their dogs.

A recent human use study by the Town of Canmore and Alberta Environment and Parks shed light on the fact that extensive human use in these areas may be negatively affecting the ability of wildlife to use those areas.

On the flip side of improving habitat security for wildlife, the group recommends wildlife attractants such as garbage, berries, crabapples and feral rabbits should be removed within urban areas of the Bow Valley.
For example, bears come into towns looking for garbage and fruit trees, while elk in Canmore are becoming an increasing concern as they use golf courses, playing fields, schoolyards, and other green spaces in town.
Frame said the province’s need to translocate bears would go down if recommendations in the wildlife co-existence report are implemented and people change their behaviour.

“Securing attractants, removing shepherdia, crabapples, taking bear spray, sticking to designated trails and not crossing closure tape are the types of things to keep bears on the landscape,” said Frame.
“I hope people see that it’s not the big bad government catching and moving bears. We’re concerned with public safety and people need to move half-way and help us out with that.”

The wildlife co-existence task force’s technical working group recommends that proactive seasonal closures be implemented in the Bow Valley on an annual basis, with the hope they could also lead to reduction in the number of bear translocations.

Reoccurring seasonal closures provide habitat security for wildlife and allow animals to learn predictable patterns of human use, reducing the need for reactionary closures in response to high rates of human-wildlife encounters.

Over the years, area closures in Banff National Park have been a highly successful tool in keeping people safe, while at the same time giving wildlife the space and security they need.

As an example, there was a recent closure of a section of the lakeshore trail at Lake Minnewanka in Banff following a bear encounter near the provincial boundary. The province responded as well, closing an area on the provincial side.

In that case, a lone hiker had a lucky escape after he surprised a sow grizzly and her cub on June 3. The bear charged and bit the hiker’s hand in what was considered a defensive move to protect her cub.

Hunt said he wanted to emphasize that closures – both reactionary and proactive – have been a successful tool for Parks Canada.

“We’re lucky our legislation and mandate lends ourselves to quickly and effectively establish a closure,” he said. “We find closures to be extremely effective in reducing conflicts. It gives the animal the security and space it needs.”

Examples of more proactive closures include a seasonal summer restriction for mountain bikers on the Lake Minnewanka trail and at Allenby Pass for hikers to minimize disturbance to grizzly bears feeding on berries.

Another example is the Bow Valley Parkway seasonal nighttime closure to give animals the space they need to thrive during spring months at crucial times of the day and year.

“Wildlife have very quickly figured that out and they make use of that area during a critical period,” said Hunt. “The idea is the more predictable you can make it, it allows wildlife and people to better plan their activities throughout the day.”

On lands in the Bow Valley outside the national park, closures are also used.

But Frame said it’s a little more complicated than in Banff where Parks Canada has full jurisdiction, noting there is a multi-ownership land base in and around Canmore.

“One of our recommendations is we’re streamlining our area closure process so we can try to make these decisions more timely than we have in the past,” he said.“When there’s a serious public safety concern on provincial land we definitely put closures in right away.”

In the case of bear 148, who spent 90 per cent of her time in Banff, she began heading to Canmore to feast on buffalo berries in summer, primarily on the south side of the valley in an area heavily used by hikers, bikers, joggers and people walking dogs.

Local staff with three provincial government agencies made a consensus decision to close a large area on the south side of the valley to better manage 148 and the risk of someone getting hurt – but that was overturned by higher ranking provincial officials.

Within two months of being moved several kilometres away to a remote area near Kakwa Wildland Provincial Park, bear 148 was shot dead by a hunter near McBride, B.C., just weeks before the trophy hunt was banned.

“She just kept coming into contact with people. If those interactions are reduced, then there’s no need to remove a bear,” said Frame. “Translocation comes in after co-existence has broken down.”

Meanwhile, the technical working group recommends continuing to research the effectiveness of bear translocations to ensure the best chance of success for animals moved out of the home range.

A recent study in Alberta showed that one-third of 110 translocations of collared bears between 1974 and 2014 were successful. However, that was based on the bear surviving for only one year and not requiring further management in that time.

The authors of that study also identified considerations that could result in higher translocation success rates, such as time of year bears are translocated and habitat quality at release sites.

Frame said eight bears were translocated province-wide last year, and so far all are alive, except for 148.
“We’re trying to look at the outcome and the contribution to group population and for grizzly bear recovery,” he said. “We’re trying to learn if translocation doesn’t work, can we determine why and can we try to change our protocols to make it more successful?”

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks