14 Grizzlies Killed Under Alberta Responder Program, Bow Valley MLA Raises Concerns

Fourteen grizzly bears have been killed through Alberta's civilian wildlife responder program since 2024, raising concerns from Banff-Kananaskis MLA Sarah Elmeligi about who should be responsible for killing problem bears.

Under the program, civilian hunters can be authorized to kill grizzlies involved in conflicts with people or property, a responsibility traditionally handled by trained Fish and Wildlife officers.

The province says the outcome is the same, but Elmeligi questions whether civilian responders have comparable training and safeguards. She wants the program ended.

The Department of Forestry and Parks confirmed the 14 deaths to Bow Valley Insider.

Its response did not specify how many deaths occurred in 2026 or provide a separate total for bears killed by provincial officers.

How the responder network works

According to Alberta’s program webpage, the network is intended to speed up responses to wildlife conflicts and free officers for other work. It covers grizzly bears and problem elk herds.

The province’s application guide limits grizzly applications to Alberta residents aged 18 or older who hold a valid wildlife identification number and wildlife certificate and are eligible to hold hunting licences. Applying costs $50 plus GST.

Applicants are selected randomly. Those chosen are placed on a priority list and may be called when a wildlife conflict requires a response.

For grizzlies, selected responders must be able to respond within 24 hours of being contacted. Their authorization sets out where they may pursue the animal and how long the permission lasts. It does not automatically grant access to private or restricted land.

Responders must report the removal and deliver the bear to the government for record-keeping and sampling. They are permitted to keep the bear's meat, hide and other parts, except the gall bladder.

In its written response, the department said responders must be registered Alberta hunters with all required firearms training and certification. However, the published application requirements do not specify bear-specific training.

The department says responders act under the direction of an authorized Fish and Wildlife officer. Neither its statement nor the application guide clarifies whether an officer must be physically present when the bear is killed.

How the decision is made

Alberta’s 2023 Grizzly Bear Response Guide outlines how officials decide what action to take when a grizzly comes into conflict with people.

It says prevention is the first response in most situations where a bear has not presented an immediate threat to people. Options include removing attractants, closing an area, installing electric fencing and having trained personnel drive bears away with deterrents, a practice known as hazing.

The response charts consider the bear’s age, sex and family status, behaviour, conflict history and location relative to recovery zones. Possible outcomes include relocation within or outside a bear management area and euthanasia.

The guide allows greater tolerance for conflict behaviour in areas designated for grizzly recovery and calls for an officer and the provincial carnivore specialist to review an incident before a bear is killed.

A separate authorization guide, dated March 25, 2025, governs civilian removals.

Its decision tree rules out authorizations when the public safety risk is high or immediate, or when cubs are present. It requires agreement from enforcement staff, the provincial carnivore specialist and the landowner or producer.

The specialist prepares the authorization for the Hunting and Fishing Branch’s executive director to approve. The guide says these authorizations will rarely, if ever, be used in recovery zones and will typically be issued outside recovery and support zones.

Some cases remain with specialist officers. The department said responders cannot remove bears that have attacked a person or shown predatory behaviour toward people. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Services’ specialized bear response teams handle those animals.

Who identifies the bear?

Elmeligi’s main concern is whether responders are properly trained to carry out a removal safely and target the right animal.

“Bringing somebody in from the public to conduct that activity, we run the risk of shooting or killing the wrong bear,” she told Bow Valley Insider.

She said professional officers bring firearms training, knowledge of wildlife behaviour and experience working with landowners.

The department said officers and provincial wildlife experts identify the animal using field descriptions, photographs, conflict locations, track size and the distance between canine teeth.

The response guide also says a bear’s conflict history should be supported by strong evidence linking incidents to that individual. It identifies DNA and marked bears as the strongest evidence for establishing that history.

However, the department did not clarify whether DNA collected after a responder kills a bear is routinely compared with evidence from the original conflict to confirm the correct animal was killed.

Elmeligi acknowledged that the process used to decide whether a bear should be killed does not change under the network. Her objection is to a civilian carrying out the killing once that decision is made.

The department said the expected result is the same either way.

“The expected outcome from an officer-led removal and one implemented by a responder are the exact same; the lethal removal of a grizzly bear in a conflict situation,” it said.

Management tool or hunting opportunity?

Alberta’s application guide states that the program is “not a recreational hunting opportunity.” Elmeligi disagrees, pointing to responders being allowed to keep the bear’s meat and hide.

“So that’s why it’s actually a hunt in my mind,” she said.

She argues the priority should be preventing conflict through measures such as securing food and garbage, rather than involving civilian hunters in killing bears.

“My number one recommendation is to toss it,” she said.

The department said Alberta manages grizzlies “first and foremost, with a recovery objective.” Its broader approach includes public education, monitoring bear populations and movements, changes to infrastructure to reduce conflicts and quick responses when safety is at risk.

It said none of the bears lethally removed in 2026 were considered to have impeded recovery objectives. The response did not include the analysis behind that assessment or data showing whether civilian responders resolve conflicts faster or prevent future incidents.

Elmeligi also wants more information released on where and why individual authorizations are issued and how their outcomes are assessed.

For the Bow Valley and Kananaskis, the local picture remains unclear.

Elmeligi did not identify a confirmed responder-network removal in the area, and the department did not provide a geographic breakdown.

Alberta’s published guides explain how a bear can be selected for lethal removal. However, they do not explain why each of the 14 bears was killed, where those deaths occurred or whether the correct animals were identified.

Those unanswered questions are at the heart of Elmeligi’s call for greater transparency.