Lessons in wildlife management and community engagement

By Mark Hall

Op-Ed Commentary

The recent loss of a well-known grizzly bear on Texada Island has thrust the challenges of grizzly bear management into the spotlight. This incident, which involved the bear known as Tex, serves as a microcosm for the ongoing tensions between rural communities, governmental authorities, and outside conservation organizations. The discussion around what happened underscores the deep complexities that surface when large predators and people coexist—and what happens when local voices feel ignored.

For communities situated on the edge of wilderness, encounters with dangerous wildlife are a reality of daily life.

Throughout history, and across the globe, rural people have found themselves in situations where they must act quickly to protect themselves and their livelihoods. In British Columbia, as in places as diverse as India’s tiger territories or parts of rural Africa, frustration grows when decisions about wildlife are made by people who do not share these lived experiences.

On Texada, the death of Tex the grizzly may have been perceived by many locals as the result of authorities and outside groups failing to address community concerns in a timely or effective manner.

This dynamic is not unique to British Columbia. Research from Alberta provides a telling example: rural residents, when they feel unheard in matters of wildlife management, may turn to illegal killings of grizzly bears as a form of protest or to safeguard their families and property.

In response, Alberta authorities have begun to bridge this divide by implementing collaborative programs, sometimes involving licensed hunters, to manage human-bear conflicts. While such efforts may serve as much to build social trust as to directly manage grizzly bears, they do point toward a model where communities are treated as equal partners in conservation.

Organizations like the Grizzly Bear Foundation helped bring about the ban on grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia. Their advocacy is now shaping provincial policy. Yet, for some rural residents, the influence of such organizations over government decisions can feel disproportionate, especially when provincial agencies refer to these groups as “partners” in grizzly bear management.

When external organizations, often based in urban centres, seem to have more sway than those who live with the consequences of policy decisions, local voices can feel marginalized.

The bear at the centre of the Texada incident was not new to conflict. Many in the community felt that the risks posed by Tex were real and immediate. There is a sense among locals that, absent pressure from outside groups, the BC Conservation Officer Service might have acted more decisively or swiftly to resolve the situation. When residents believe their safety is not being prioritized, the temptation to take matters into their own hands becomes greater—sometimes with tragic results.

The unpredictability of grizzly bears only heightens these tensions. Despite their reputation for strength and majesty, grizzlies can behave erratically and pose a genuine risk to people, pets, and livestock.

Calls for coexistence are easy to make from a distance, but for those who face the reality of a grizzly in their yard or near a school, the stakes feel different. Rural people don’t want to be told to simply “cohabitate” with dangerous animals—they want their concerns to be taken seriously and for policy to reflect the realities of their daily lives.

This is not an argument against conservation, but rather a call for a more balanced, nuanced approach.

Urban residents expect to be protected from raccoons, squirrels, or skunks invading their homes; rural communities deserve similar protections from much larger and more dangerous wildlife. When authorities act swiftly and transparently, and when they demonstrate that the safety of people is at least as important as the protection of grizzly bears, the result is a deeper trust and more effective collaboration.

First Nations communities in British Columbia can offer a valuable perspective. Some Indigenous leaders have expressed support for relocating problem bears, but also recognize, based on generations of lived experience, that when a bear threatens the safety of elders, children, or the community, decisive action is necessary. This approach is not rooted in a lack of respect for wildlife; rather, it is about maintaining a sustainable balance between people and bears.

Since the ban on grizzly bear hunting in the province, new challenges have appeared: fewer government resources for research and response, an uptick in both unreported bear deaths and community frustrations, and the perception that rural voices are less included in policy discussions. Without meaningful engagement with those most affected by these changes, conservation efforts risk losing the support they need to succeed.

True progress in grizzly bear management will come only when local communities are included as full partners in decision-making. This requires governments and advocacy organizations to listen actively, to respect rural knowledge, and to act in ways that reflect both scientific evidence and on-the-ground realities. By building genuine partnerships and responding promptly to legitimate safety concerns, British Columbia can foster a future in which both people and grizzly bears thrive.

In the end, the lessons from Texada Island are clear: thoughtful, community-based approaches to grizzly bear management, grounded in respect and collaboration, provide the best path forward for conservation and for keeping rural residents safe. Only by working together can we hope to find a lasting balance between the needs of communities and grizzly bears.

Mark Hall is the Executive Director of the Wild Origins Canada Foundation and host of the Hunter Conservationist Podcast. Wild Origins Canada is federal not for profit based in B.C. dedicated to conveying the truth around hunting and championing support for sustainable use.

e-KNOW file photo

Article Share