Mark Hall’s reaction to my article on the newly legalized practice of hunting bears with dogs started with the statement that it ‘relies on emotional rhetoric, selective science, and mischaracterizations that deserve clarification’. I would like to address each of his criticisms in turn.
Mark Hall: Contrary to the claim that this regulation was introduced “quietly” or “under the guise” of conservation, the change has been publicly known for some time. Stakeholders – including wildlife managers, Indigenous representatives, and experienced hunters – were consulted in shaping the regulation.
Mark Bradley: It may have been known to a few people, but not very many. There was no press release. Even the list of people Mr. Hall claims were consulted is woefully inadequate. No ENGOs (Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations), not the general public, and no mention of scientists. By the way, we’ll have to take his word on the consultation. Government representatives are apparently not allowed to speak, and the minister’s office doesn’t respond to queries. As far as I know, there are no public records of the consultation.
Hall: The assertion that hound hunting “won’t actually help caribou” ignores a growing body of peer-reviewed research. Predator management – including the reduction of predator density – has been shown to improve survival in endangered caribou herds. Studies from the Klinse-Za maternal penning project in British Columbia demonstrate that predator pressure, not just the first week of calf life, significantly affects long-term recruitment. For example, the West Moberly First Nation reported that wolverines play a role in endangered caribou mortality. Dr. Seth Moore’s work with the Grand Portage Band further supports the role of targeted bear removal in boosting struggling ungulate populations.
Bradley: This is the major point of my article: I just don’t think the policy change will actually kill enough bears to affect caribou populations. Black bears don’t kill that many caribou, and hound hunting probably won’t increase the current bear kill by much – therefore no effect on caribou populations. Two of the three studies he cited have absolutely nothing to do with black bears – one was about wolf control and the other briefly mentioned wolverines. I readily admit that wolf (and in some places, cougar) control can increase caribou numbers – but it is widely accepted that you have to kill up to 80% of the wolves, and you have to do it every year (e.g. Russell, D. 2010).
Arguably, because black bears kill far fewer caribou than wolves, you’d have to kill even more bears to affect predation rate. I’m unequivocally NOT arguing for more bear killing, but if you wanted to kill enough bears to affect caribou population size, you’d have to kill a ton of them, every year – and even that probably wouldn’t move the needle much on caribou populations. By the way, that third article Mr. Hall cited actually was about black bears, but the topic was black bear predation on moose calves in Minnesota, not caribou in Alberta – the situations are just not comparable.
Hall: The claim that hound hunting is unethical misrepresents the foundations of ethical hunting. Ethics in hunting operate on three levels: legal norms, peer standards, and personal values. When all three align – as they do here – hunting with hounds is not only legal but widely accepted within the hunting community and practiced with respect for wildlife.
Bradley: Well… ethics are pretty subjective, and everyone sets their own bar. Legal norms? It’s now legal because the minister says it is. Peer standards? I guess this means that hunters approve of it? That could be, but what about everyone else? Personal values? Again, only those of hunters – and I suspect not even all hunters are in favour of this policy. In short, I don’t agree with Mr. Hall’s definition of ethical, which seems to be: ‘do hunters approve of it?’.
Hall: Fair chase principles are also upheld. The two central tests – whether the animal can avoid detection and elude the hunter once detected – are met. Of the studies that have been done, there are indications that 50–75 percent of bears escape hounds and are never treed. This is not a guaranteed harvest, but a challenging pursuit that respects the animal’s natural defenses.
Bradley: My article didn’t actually address the issue of avoiding detection or eluding the hunter. I don’t doubt that this kind of hunting is difficult and can be physically challenging. I actually participated in a few of these hunts in 2014 to catch some troublesome Jasper cougars for collaring and relocation. My point about ethics was that dog hunting will cause a number of bears to run for hours before the hunter kills one, and bears need those calories to get through the winter. The hound season is right in the middle of hyperphagia (a fancy word that means lots of eating to put on fat for winter), the worst possible time for the bears. Mr. Hall is mute on the point of bears wasting energy. The statistic he DOES mention (escape rate) only proves my point that many bears are being harassed prior to a kill – compared to spotting and stalking, which arguably causes very little stress to bears not killed.
Hall: The suggestion that hound hunting is primarily for trophy purposes is misleading. In Canada, black bears are overwhelmingly hunted for sustenance. When properly processed, approximately 85 percent of a bear’s mass is utilized – meat, fat, hide, and bones. This level of use far exceeds the standards of ethical harvest and aligns with societal expectations for responsible hunting.
Bradley: Although Mr. Hall supplied no statistics or citations, it could well be that many of the black bears killed in Canada are eaten – probably by indigenous people. But very few people are hunting black bears for sustenance with hounds – that’s reserved for trophy hunters who can afford the outfitter’s rates. And 85% of ‘properly processed’ bears are utilized? Maybe, but how many are actually ‘properly processed’? Minister Loewen just changed the rules so that when you kill a black bear, you can leave behind EITHER the hide OR the meat. I strongly suspect that many bear carcasses will be left behind – which would translate to about 10% utilization.
Hall: Concerns about dogs chasing grizzlies are speculative. In regions like southern British Columbia, where grizzly populations are dense and hound hunting is practiced, houndsmen have demonstrated exceptional skill and responsibility. These hunters are trained to identify scent trails accurately and operate under strict legal frameworks that prohibit the harvest of grizzlies.
Bradley: Well, yes, I was speculating about dogs chasing grizzlies, but I think it’s a very reasonable one. Mr. Hall does not supply any evidence to support his speculation that B.C. hunters demonstrate ‘exceptional skill and responsibility’. In this case, the relevant skill would be persuading your dogs to NOT chase grizzly bears. Notice that he doesn’t actually claim that grizzlies are not chased, just that hunters are skilled. I also didn’t claim that grizzlies would be harvested. My concern would be causing grizzlies to expend energy unnecessarily. By the way, I don’t doubt that many or perhaps most houndsmen possess skill and responsibility, but I don’t think that will stop their dogs from chasing grizzly bears. And unlike black bears, Alberta grizzly bears are a threatened species.
Hall: The question of who should shape hunting regulations is important. Wildlife is a public resource, and all Albertans deserve a voice. However, expertise matters. While biologists and photographers offer valuable perspectives, they are not necessarily experts in hunting practices, bear behavior under pursuit, or hound management. Balanced advisory boards – comprising hunters, Indigenous leaders, scientists, and public representatives – are the best path forward.
Bradley: Actually, I agree with the sentiment that balanced advisory boards are a good idea, but that’s NOT what happened here. The minister talked to hand-picked stakeholders, I assume, and made his decision. Again, no information is available on this.
Hall: Hound-assisted black bear hunting in Alberta’s CCAs is not a reckless trophy pursuit. It is a regulated, ethical, and scientifically supported tool for predator management – one that contributes to caribou recovery and sustains hunting traditions. Let’s move beyond emotional appeals and toward collaborative, evidence-based conservation that respects both wildlife and the people who steward it.
Bradley: The word ‘reckless’ did not appear in my article. However, Mr. Hall’s main idea – that we should use ‘collaborative, evidence-based conservation’ is a good one. But again, this is NOT what happened here. There was no evidence offered, it was NOT scientifically supported (as far as I know, because the province’s scientists have been muzzled), and I would say it was NOT collaborative, at least not with anyone but people hand-picked by the minister. Ideally, for both species you would have population numbers, survival rates, reproductive rates, predation rates and a model to tie all these variables together – such a model would give you a reasonable expectation of the new policy’s chances of success (more caribou). But when I asked the minister’s office if they had the relevant data, or had calculated such a model, no answer was forthcoming.
So, to sum up, I don’t think any of Mr. Hall’s criticisms stand up to scrutiny. I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that wildlife management is best done with collaborative boards representing a wide range of people (including scientists). But as far as I know, this was not done.
Mark Bradley // info@thejasperlocal.com
