The Myth of Hunting

What Bear Experts Told the Montana Governor’s Panel About Grizzly Management 

As Montana debates whether to allow trophy hunting of grizzly bears, one idea is often repeated as fact: that hunting is necessary to control grizzly populations and make communities safer. 

But when the Montana Governor’s Grizzly Bear Advisory Council (GBAC) asked bear experts from Alaska, British Columbia, and the U.S. federal grizzly recovery program to weigh in, the science told a very different story. (Watch YouTube video below)

Across jurisdictions with decades of experience managing grizzly bears, the conclusion was clear and consistent: 

• Hunting does not control grizzly populations. 

• Hunting does not reduce human–bear conflict. 

• Hunting does not instill a meaningful fear of humans in bears. 

 
Does Hunting Control Grizzly Bear Populations? 

No. 

British Columbia’s Large Carnivore Specialist explained to the Governor’s panel that hunting removes too few bears to change long-term population size. Grizzly populations rebound naturally based on food availability, not hunting pressure. 

Alaska’s experience, home to the largest grizzly population on Earth, reinforces this finding. After more than 15 years of liberal hunting seasons and increased harvests in some regions, Alaska reported no evidence that bear numbers, age structure, or population composition declined. 

In short, even intensive hunting fails to regulate grizzly populations. 

 
Does Hunting Reduce Human–Bear Conflict? 

Again, the answer from experts was no. 

Former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator Dr. Chris Servheen told GBAC there is no evidence that a normally managed grizzly hunt reduces conflicts between people and bears. 
 

Why? Because hunting removes the wrong bears. 

Most legal hunts target adult male bears in remote wilderness areas. Most conflicts involve food-conditioned bears near people often females with cubs that are not hunted. Removing non-conflict bears does nothing to improve public safety. 
 

Does Hunting Instill a “Fear of Humans” in Grizzlies? 

This claim is widely repeated, but poorly supported. 

Grizzly bears are solitary animals. When a bear is killed during a hunt, no other bears are present to learn from the event. As Dr. Servheen explained, a dead bear does not teach the population to fear people. 

British Columbia’s scientists told the panel this question is “hotly debated,” with no clear evidence that hunting changes bear behavior in a way that reduces risk to humans. 

Importantly, most grizzlies already avoid people even after more than 40 years without sport hunting in the Lower 48. 
 

What Actually Works 

The experts agreed on what does keep communities safer: 

• Securing garbage and food attractants 

• Bear-resistant infrastructure 

• Rapid response by trained wildlife professionals 

• Community education 

• Protecting habitat and movement corridors 

These tools address the real drivers of conflict not myths. 
 

The Bottom Line 

When bear managers from Alaska, Canada, and the U.S. federal recovery program addressed the Governor’s Grizzly Bear Advisory Council, their message was unmistakable: 

• Hunting is not a population control tool. 

• Hunting does not reduce conflict. 

• Hunting does not make people safer. 

The future of grizzly management must be guided by science, coexistence, and responsibility not outdated assumptions or political pressure. 

Save the Yellowstone Grizzly believes that hunting grizzly bears is never an acceptable option. Trophy hunting and the hunting of apex predators are outdated practices that do not contribute to conservation, public safety, or healthy ecosystems. They benefit a narrow set of interests while placing an irreplaceable species at risk.

At the same time, we recognize and respect ethical, subsistence-based hunting of game animals for food. Hunting for meat, practiced responsibly and within ecological limits, has long been part of human survival, stewardship, and cultural tradition.

Grizzly bears, however, are fundamentally different. As apex predators and keystone species, their survival depends not only on protection from killing, but on genetic diversity and connectivity between currently isolated ecosystems. The long-term future of grizzlies in the Lower 48 requires allowing bears to move between Yellowstone, Glacier, the Northern Continental Divide, and other recovery zones maintaining healthy gene flow and avoiding inbreeding that shows up when populations are cut off from one another.

Climate change makes this connectivity even more urgent. As food sources shift, habitats change, and seasonal patterns become less predictable, grizzly bears are dispersing onto new parts of the landscape in search of suitable habitat. These “explorer” bears are not a threat. They are a sign of ecological resilience. Successful recovery depends on public tolerance and adaptive management that allows bears the room they need to roam, rather than punishing them for following survival instincts shaped over millennia.

We stand with Native American communities for whom grizzly bears are sacred beings: relatives, teachers, and protectors woven into culture, ceremony, and identity. These bears are not commodities or targets. They deserve reverence, respect, and lasting protection.

True stewardship means choosing coexistence over domination, science over myth, and responsibility over exploitation.