H4BC Note: This editorial has been provided by a guest writer. Please review the author’s provided citations for questions surrounding data.

Guest writer, Jamie Scott

Hunters and conservationists often find themselves in discussions with grizzly bear activists, and at times, it can be challenging to communicate key points due to misunderstandings or strong biases. I’m frequently asked to “show the facts,” so I’ll be sharing them here.

These facts will demonstrate that grizzly bears were listed as endangered largely due to emotional responses and political influence from outside NGOs with financial interests at stake.

No matter where you stand on hunting, I encourage you to read through the information. Hunting plays a crucial role in conservation and wildlife management, and disregarding these FACTS can have serious consequences for wildlife and ecosystems.

Population Data

In 2010, BC was home to one of North America’s Largest grizzly populations; at the time, it was 15,000 grizzly. This was during the full-scale hunt of grizzly bears, and they were found to still be thriving. For further context, all of Canada has 26,000 grizzly bears, and BC holds 15,000 of them in a single province!

Grizzlies in BC occupy a wide range of habitats from coastal rainforests to interior mountains, although some southern sub-populations are small or isolated. BC’s wildlife authorities have divided the province into 57 Grizzly Bear Population Units; of these, 56 remained occupied (one extirpated) by 2012, and 9 units were classified as “threatened” due to low numbers or habitat issues. The vast majority of GBPUs, however, were considered viable and not at risk as of 2012.

The 2012 provincial assessment explicitly used “all available inventories and the most rigorous statistical modelling approach to date”, giving high confidence in that ~15,000 figure

Over decades, OFFICIAL estimates of bc grizzly bear populations have increased as survey methods improved. In 1960 the grizzly bear population in BC biologists estimated to be 6,600, and by 1990, the population was found to be 13,000! This was considered to be a minimum count at the time. Now, intensive inventories in the early 2000s led to estimates of 17,000 (2004 study), and an updated figure showed there were 16,000 by 2008. The science during this time does non indicate a true population rise or fall; it was merely the methodology and data accuracy.

Research and Data Collection Methods

Estimating grizzly bear abundance is challenging. Grizzlies are wide-ranging, low-density, and often secretive animals . Before 2017, British Columbia invested heavily in research and monitoring to improve grizzly population data. Key organizations involved include the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (and earlier the Ministry of Environment), which led provincial population inventories, often in collaboration with independent biologists and university researchers. Notably, BC’s grizzly bear research program produced more DNA-based population estimates than any other jurisdiction in the world by 2016. Some of the prominent scientists and groups contributing data were government biologists (e.g. Garth Mowat, Bruce McLellan), university researchers (e.g. University of Alberta’s Mark Boyce and Andrew Derocher, who co-authored a 2016 review, and others at University of Victoria, UBC, etc.), and conservation organizations that occasionally funded or conducted studies. These experts employed a variety of modern techniques to count and model grizzly populations:

**DNA hair-snag sampling (mark–recapture): Since the late 1990s, DNA-based methods have been a cornerstone of grizzly surveys in BC. Researchers set barbed-wire “hair snag” stations to collect bear hair, which is genotyped to identify individual bears. By baiting sites and using capture–recapture analysis of the hair samples, biologists can estimate local grizzly density with good accuracy . Foundational studies by Woods et al. (1999) and Mowat & Strobeck (2000) demonstrated the effectiveness of this technique in BC . Over the 2000s, numerous DNA studies were done in different GBPU regions (e.g. the Okanagan, Kootenays, Cariboo, etc.), and these results were incorporated into provincial estimates. By 2012, any GBPU that had recent DNA study data used those empirical results for the population model, improving accuracy.
Aerial sight-resight surveys: In some areas, biologists have conducted visual surveys from helicopters or small planes. Using methods like mark–resight or distance sampling (sometimes with radio-collared “marked” bears for calibration), aerial surveys can provide density estimates. A 1997 study by Miller et al. improved aerial survey methods for bears. However, because such surveys are expensive and logistically difficult over BC’s vast landscapes, they were only done in a subset of regions. They nonetheless contributed data in places where terrain and budgets allowed.
Habitat-based predictive modeling: To fill gaps between intensive field studies, scientists developed models relating grizzly density to habitat and environmental factors. One landmark effort was by Mowat et al. (2013), who created a regression model using variables like land cover productivity, salmon availability, and presence of other bear species to predict grizzly bear densities across western North America. This model was published in PLoS ONE in late 2013 (accepted 2013, published 2014) and generated a predicted BC grizzly population of about 13,000 bears for the areas modeled . Importantly, this kind of model did not detect any broad decline in bear numbers; it was used as one input among others. BC’s wildlife managers combined the habitat model’s predictions with on-the-ground data (DNA inventories and expert knowledge) to arrive at the official ~15,000 figure in 2012. In practice, for each Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) or GBPU, if a DNA-based estimate was available, it was used; otherwise, the model’s density prediction (or expert opinion where data were sparse) was used, and then all units were summed to the provincial total.
Compulsory reporting of kills & age data: BC has long required that any hunted grizzly bear be inspected and reported. Since 1976, every legally harvested grizzly has been logged in a provincial database (with data on sex, age via tooth analysis, location, etc.). These records average about 297 grizzlies shot by licensed hunters per year (1976–2012 average) . Additional mortality records (bears destroyed for conflicts, road/rail kills, etc.) are also kept, adding another ~40 bears per year on average . Biologists use this rich dataset in several ways. First, it provides a direct indicator of harvest pressure in each population unit. Second, the age and sex composition of the kill can be analyzed to infer population status – for example, an over-harvested bear population will typically show a declining average age and fewer older males. Third, these data feed into statistical population reconstruction (SPR) models. In 2018, Hatter et al. published an SPR analysis of BC grizzlies (using data up to 2012) that estimated population trends based on the sequence of ages of bears killed, calibrated with independent population estimates. This innovative approach leveraged the long-term harvest data to assess whether bear numbers were going up or down in various regions.

Population Trends and Evidence of Growth

Overall trend: The best available evidence up to 2017 indicated that BC’s grizzly bear population was stable to increasing in most areas, with some local exceptions. The federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2012 reported “no evidence of a decline in the overall [Canadian] population during the past 20 years”. Some regions in northern BC and adjacent territories showed signs of grizzly range expansion into areas where they had been absent (e.g. bears moving into tundra areas of northern Manitoba or further into Nunavut) . Within BC, many grizzly populations had recovered from historical lows by the 2000s. A 2018 analysis (Ian Hatter et al., using 1985–2012 data) found a “gradual increase in abundance” of grizzlies in the “Temperate Mountains” region of BC from 1985 until about 2004, after which some leveling-off occurred . This pattern was “consistent with other independent studies and supported the premise that grizzly bear numbers were recovering from a population low until ~2000–2005”. The same study noted that the Boreal/Sub-Boreal interior region of BC also showed a recovering trend through that period . In practical terms, grizzly numbers in a number of GBPUs (especially in central and northern BC) increased or rebounded in the 1990s and early 2000s, likely due to improved wildlife management and reduced overhunting.

Regional differences: Not every area experienced growth – some small, isolated populations in southern BC were (and remain) at low levels. For instance, GBPUs such as the North Cascades (on the Washington border) only had single-digit bear counts, and a few others in the Southern Interior and Coast were designated threatened . Conservationists often highlighted these struggling units. However, these represent a minority of BC’s grizzlies. The BC Ministry’s 2012 assessment classified 9 out of 56 extant units (16%) as threatened , which means the other ~84% of units were considered viable (stable or growing). Even in many southern BC ranges, grizzly populations were holding steady or slowly increasing, thanks to management efforts. Long-term research by Dr. Bruce McLellan in the Flathead Valley of southeastern BC, for example, documented a stable-to-increasing grizzly population over decades (McLellan’s study began in the 1970s, and by the 2000s, that population had a healthy density) . The BC Wildlife Federation summarized the situation just after the hunt was closed: aside from a “few isolated… populations in southern B.C. that are struggling,” “most others have been increasing and are now becoming stable, are still increasing, or are relatively large and have likely been stable for decades.” In short, the prevailing science before 2017 showed that BC’s grizzly bear population as a whole was not declining and, in many areas, was on an upward trajectory or at a healthy equilibrium.

It’s worth noting that much of this positive trend was attributed to past conservation measures. Grizzlies had been eradicated from parts of southern Canada and the US by the early 1900s . In BC, they persisted province-wide but at reduced numbers in some regions. Through habitat protection and controlled hunting, BC enabled many grizzly sub-populations to recover from mid-20th-century lows. For example, grizzly hunting in BC became more strictly managed from the 1970s onward, which helped previously over-harvested populations rebound by the 1990s . Additionally, large tracts of wilderness in northern and central BC provided refuge where grizzlies thrived. By 2012, COSEWIC considered the overall BC (and western Canada) grizzly status to be “Special Concern” (not endangered) mainly because “most populations are stable”, although they cautioned that slow reproduction and human impacts mean vigilance is needed.

Sustainability of Grizzly Hunting in BC

Before 2017, licensed grizzly bear hunting was legal in British Columbia (with tightly regulated seasons and quotas). The question of whether this hunt was sustainable was the subject of considerable scientific scrutiny. Multiple lines of evidence: population monitoring, harvest statistics, and demographic modeling supported the claim that BC’s grizzly hunt was sustainable and did not threaten the overall population.

Harvest rates: The grizzly bear hunt in BC was managed very conservatively. Typically, about 250–300 grizzlies were harvested by hunters per year, out of an estimated ~15,000 bears. This is roughly a 2% annual harvest rate . Scientific studies on bear biology suggest that grizzlies can sustain human-caused mortality rates on the order of 4–6% per year without declining, provided that includes all sources of death . (Grizzlies have low natural adult mortality – only ~1–2% annually – so they can biologically compensate for a few extra percent from human causes .) In practice, BC’s policy capped allowable human-caused mortality at about 6% of a local population in any given year, and in many cases, the actual harvest remained well below this. For instance, an independent analysis by Boyce, Derocher, and Garshelis (2016) concluded that an annual removal of up to ~8% might be sustainable for BC grizzlies, which is higher than what BC allowed. In other words, the hunting quotas were set below the levels considered a risk to sustain populations. A 2016 scientific panel review of BC’s management found that “the Province has a high level of rigour and adequate safeguards in place to ensure the long-term stability of grizzly populations” . This panel, composed of three renowned carnivore scientists (Drs. Boyce, Derocher, and Garshelis), examined everything from population data to harvest rules. They affirmed that BC’s system was science-based and conservative, with measures like limiting the fraction of females in the harvest and closing areas if quotas are exceeded . The panel report even noted that assessing harvest sustainability is challenging, but “B.C.’s grizzly bear harvest management procedures are rigorous… and have meaningful safeguards” to prevent overkill.

Adaptive management: BC adjusted hunting limits whenever data indicated a potential issue. The 2012 population modeling exercise, for example, was immediately used to cross-check ongoing hunts. In areas where the new estimates suggested the harvest rate might be above the target, managers reduced hunting permits the next season . This demonstrates that the government was actively managing on a unit-by-unit basis to keep mortality within sustainable bounds. Additionally, roughly 35% of BC was completely closed to grizzly hunting (e.g. all national and many provincial parks, plus several entire GBPUs that were classified as threatened, had no open season) . These large refugia further ensured that a core of the population experienced little human-caused mortality. All grizzly hunts were limited entry (a lottery system for residents, plus a cap on guided non-resident hunts), and the hunt was “the most intensively managed hunt of any species in B.C.” according to the Ministry. Every kill was recorded and inspected (compulsory), and enforcement against poaching was in place.

Scientific findings: Leading up to 2017, peer-reviewed studies generally supported the view that the grizzly hunt was not causing a population decline. A comprehensive analysis published in 2017 (McLellan et al. 2017, in the Journal of Wildlife Management) explicitly tested whether the BC grizzly harvest had been unsustainable. The researchers looked at bear survival rates, reproduction, and harvest data across BC. They found that the hypothesis of an unsustainable hunt was not supported by the available evidence . In other words, the numbers did not show any systematic overharvest – the grizzly population was generally replacing itself even with the ongoing hunting. McLellan et al. noted that actual human-caused mortality rates in BC (including hunting, control kills, etc.) were typically in the range of 4–6% or less, which their population modeling suggested was sustainable for grizzlies . Another finding was that the age and sex structure of the hunted bears was consistent with a sustainable hunt: a large proportion of the kill was adult males, which has less impact on population growth than killing females. Indeed, regulations discouraged killing females, and most hunters targeted males. Before 2017, the number of bears killed by people showed no correlation with declining density – areas with higher harvest did not have lower bear densities, implying that the hunting levels were within the regenerative capacity of the populations . As one summary put it, “current levels of mortality do not measurably reduce population size” in BC.

Multiple government reports echoed these conclusions. The BC Ministry’s communications in 2014 stated that grizzly populations were being “sustainably managed, and with the best available science” . The independent 2016 panel, after reviewing the system concluded that BC’s management achieved “long-term stability of grizzly populations”. They issued 51 recommendations for further improvement (e.g. more habitat protection, even more monitoring), but overall gave a very positive assessment of the hunt’s sustainability . It’s important to highlight that sustainability here is defined in a biological sense: the grizzly population was not declining as a result of the hunt. (This is separate from the social debate that ultimately ended the hunt in 2017, which was driven more by ethics and public opinion than by scientific necessity.)

To summarize the evidence available before 2017: British Columbia’s grizzly bear population was estimated at ~15,000 and was generally stable or increasing, with robust monitoring in place. Data from DNA studies, observation surveys, and modeling all indicated healthy numbers provincially, despite some small subpopulations in the south needing recovery . Meanwhile, annual hunter harvests removed only ~2% of the population, and extensive scientific analysis – by government biologists, independent academics, and third-party reviews – found this level of offtake to be sustainable (not causing depletion). BC’s Ministry and experts like McLellan, Mowat, Boyce, and others all concluded that the grizzly hunt was managed conservatively and that grizzly numbers were secure under the existing harvest regime. These conclusions were backed by a range of credible sources: peer-reviewed journal articles, government technical reports, and the federal COSEWIC status assessment. All relevant data before 2017 reinforced that BC’s grizzly population was viable and could sustain a limited hunt without jeopardizing the species’ long-term survival in the province.

Sources

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations – “Grizzly Bear Population Status in BC (2012)” (April 2012). This report provides the official 2012 population estimate (~15,000 bears) and notes historical estimates (6,600 in the 1970s; 13,000 in 1990; etc.). It explains that improved methodologies account for changes in estimates and includes detailed population unit data and mortality statistics .
COSEWIC – “Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Western Population – Status Report” (2012). National assessment that cites BC’s population around 15,000 (largest in Canada) . It notes no overall decline in grizzlies in the past 20 years and some northern range expansion , while flagging some declines in southern BC and Alberta.
Mowat, G. et al. 2013 (published 2014). “Predicting Grizzly Bear Density in Western North America” (PLoS ONE 8(12): e82757). A habitat-based model that predicted ~13,000 grizzlies in BC . BC wildlife managers used this alongside field data to inform the 2012 estimate .
Hatter, I. et al. 2018. “Statistical population reconstruction to evaluate grizzly bear trends in British Columbia” (Ursus 29(1): 1–12). Used hunter age-at-kill data to infer trends, finding increases (recoveries) in several regions up to ~2005 .
McLellan, B., M. Boyce, D. Garshelis, & A. Derocher. 2017 (online 2016). “Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada” (J. Wildl. Mgmt 81). Concluded that observed harvest levels (4–6% mortality) were sustainable and not driving population declines . This study provided evidence that the BC hunt had not been unsustainable.
BC Government Press Releases/News: e.g. “Grizzly study sheds further light on bear numbers” (Dec 2013) – which highlighted the PLoS ONE study and stated “grizzly populations in B.C. are being sustainably managed” , with quick facts (15,000 bears, 300 hunted/year = 2%, 35% of area no hunting) . Also, “Experts find ‘high level of rigour’ in grizzly management” (Oct 2016) – summarizing the independent panel review: “long-term stability of grizzly populations” ensured by current practices and noting BC’s extensive use of DNA inventory data .
BC Wildlife Federation. “Status of Grizzly Bears in B.C. and why the hunt ended” (2022 blog post by BCWF) – although post-2017, it retroactively discusses pre-2017 data, noting most populations were increasing or stable for decades, except a few southern pockets . It cites retired provincial biologist Bruce McLellan’s 40-year experience.
Additional references: Academic studies on specific regions (e.g. Proctor et al. on trans-border grizzly populations), the BC Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy (1995), and the Auditor General of BC’s 2017 report on grizzly management can provide further context. However, the core quantitative evidence of growth and sustainable harvest comes from the sources listed above, which represent the consensus prior to the 2017 policy change. All data and publications up to that point consistently supported the view that BC’s grizzly bear population was healthy and that the level of hunting was biologically sustainable