Wildlife killing contests

Few issues require as much innovation and cooperation as the conservation and management of large carnivores and their prey. Use and sustainability of these species varies and depends on the multiple social-ecological contexts in which the conservation and management occur, often posing conflicts and ethical dilemmas. Low densities, expansive home ranges, and the elusive nature of species such as the gray wolf (Canis lupus), wolverine (Gulo gulo), lynx (Lynx canadensis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), cougar (Puma concolor), and black (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) complicate management efforts. The broad and diverse life requisites of these species, including space and food, and their potential to conflict with human activities generate socio-political discord that spans political borders, agency mandates, and cultural imperatives.¹

At Raincoast, we work from the premise that the seemingly disparate world views of conservationists and animal welfarists are closely related. Thus, our approach to conservation and management is grounded in doing the most good and the least harm to people, animals, and the environment. Wildlife killing contests do no good and cause a world of harm.

Killing for fun is cruel and socially unacceptable

Wildlife killing contests—often organized by local gun clubs or other private organizations—legally occur across British Columbia every year. During these events, participants kill animals for cash, prizes, entertainment or other incentives, often targeting ecologically important carnivores, including gray wolves, black bears, and cougars.² These contests often involve the indiscriminate killing of animals over a specified time and are conducted with the aim of reducing predator populations without regard for factors such as population and ecosystem dynamics, ecological impact, or intrinsic value of individual animals.³ The public at large may be unaware that such events take place in BC and North America more broadly. When informed, however, people are increasingly offended by the cruelty and ecological damage done by killing important predators for enjoyment and profit.

The number of animals killed is largely unknown

There has been public discussion and debate surrounding the ethics⁴ and ecological effects of wildlife killing contests in BC, especially considering the number of animals being killed is unknown and likely considerable in some areas.⁵ In 2019, hunting groups in the Kootenay and Cariboo regions, within which several management units are characterized by no limits on numbers of animals killed and no closed seasons for wolves and coyotes (C. latrans)⁶, sparked significant media backlash after promoting “predator tournaments” and “wolf-whacking” contests.⁷ Despite being called to action by scientists, First Nations,⁸ and more than 30 animal protection and conservation groups,⁹¹⁰ the provincial government has failed to take concrete steps to prohibit wildlife killing contests. Consequently, these events have been rebranded as ungulate¹¹ enhancement programs¹² and moved underground to avoid public scrutiny.

Unethical hunting practices persist under law

Despite priding itself on being a North American leader in the principles of fair chase hunting,¹³ British Columbia continues to encourage the mass killing of native wildlife¹⁴ and allow unethical hunting practices to persist under law.¹⁵ For the provincial government to continue down a path to improve wildlife and habitat stewardship in BC, regulatory action to ban wildlife killing contests is needed.

Predators are often the exception to the “ethical” rule

In BC, the regulation of hunting and trapping falls under the Wildlife Act, hereafter “the Act,” and policies have been put in place, in part to reinforce ethical hunting principles, such as fair chase and humane treatment. For example, ​​hunting with the aid of a light and shooting from a vehicle, both of which violate the concept of fair chase,¹⁶ are illegal under the Act. Using poison for the hunting, trapping, taking, or killing of any wildlife is also unlawful and a practice widely acknowledged as inhumane.¹⁷¹⁸

Conversely, some of the most egregious and controversial hunting practices remain legal in BC and predators often fall victim to being an exception to the “ethical” rule. For example, using recorded or electronic calls to hunt wildlife is unlawful with the exception of wolves, coyotes, cougars, bobcats, and lynx, and those same felid species, as well as black bears, can be hunted using unleashed dogs. Notably, cougars are easily treed by dogs, allowing hunters to shoot cougars at point-blank range. Furthermore, the Act considers the feeding of dangerous wildlife¹⁹ a federal offence, except when lawfully engaged in hunting or trapping where baiting wolves, coyotes, and cougars is authorized. Wildlife killing contests, on the other hand, remain undefined and unfettered by provincial legislation. Wildlife targeted in such contests are often subject to unethical practices, including those formerly described, and trapping methods that cause intense suffering to the victims.²⁰

Killing contests are a detriment to healthy ecosystems

Wildlife killing contests are inconsistent with our current understanding of the conservation and management of natural systems. Wolves, a common target in such contests, play an influential role in the ecosystems in which they live, affecting a variety of other flora and fauna. For example, in places like Banff National Park, Canada, higher wolf density led to a decrease in elk numbers and reduced browsing on various tree species, which in turn enhanced habitat quality for song birds and beavers in the ecosystem.²¹ Similar findings in Jasper National Park, Canada showed that wolf recovery in the late 1960s increased predation risk, reduced elk use, and allowed aspen to regrow.²²²³ Consequently, a concentrated effort to limit wolf numbers or remove them completely from an ecosystem can not only have long-lasting population effects,²⁴ but also adversely affect ecological, social, and evolutionary relationships, leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity as relationships among different species are disrupted through trophic cascades.²⁵²⁶ Notably, environments without these apex predators often suffer from severe ecological imbalances and ecosystem impoverishment.²⁷²⁸²⁹

Large carnivores, however, are important for more than just their ecological value. Beyond their intrinsic value, wolves elicit strong emotions from many people, often based on cultural and aesthetic values.³⁰³¹ Furthermore, the critical role large carnivores play in regulating ecosystem processes can improve human well-being³² and create substantial economic benefits.³³³⁴³⁵

Wildlife continue to be killed for no justifiable reason

The continuous and ineffective use of “predator tournaments,” “wolf-whacking contests,” and lethal predator control programs promoted under the guise of ungulate enhancement programs, are all examples of how wildlife continue to be killed without legitimate purpose.³⁶ Although participants often argue that such practices serve to bolster populations of popular hunted species and prevent conflict between native carnivores, humans, pets, and livestock, these claims are often not supported by scientific evidence, or the scientific literature is riddled with contradictory research findings. The latter applies to bear literature regarding effects of hunting on conflicts.^37383940 For example, despite sharing a political border, research conducted independently in Minnesota⁴¹ and Ontario⁴² found contrasting results, which authors of the more recent study attributed to differences between the populations of bears in the two jurisdictions. Both studies, however, reported a significant decline in the number of reports of conflict when major policy changes were instituted within management agencies for dealing with conflict-related complaints. Moreover, there is a long history of research showing that natural food availability is a primary driver of human–wildlife conflict.^43444546

Regarding conflicts in rural agricultural areas, studies show that killing wolves can increase livestock attacks, as disrupted packs are less effective at hunting wild prey and may turn to easier targets, such as livestock.⁴⁷ Additionally, lethal intervention on one farm can lead to a spill-over of depredations onto neighbouring farms,⁴⁸ exacerbating the problem rather than resolving it.

Furthermore, research has shown that wolves may enhance the health of their prey populations. Wolves usually kill large animals that are less fit, injured, or inexperienced,⁴⁹⁵⁰⁵¹ which helps generations of prey remain strong, healthy, and better able to resist disease and injury.⁵²⁵³ In natural environments, they prevent other animals from becoming too numerous, helping ensure that productive and plentiful habitat remains available for a broad diversity of species. Reducing wolf populations, on the other hand, can lead to overpopulation of ungulates, which in turn can degrade vegetation and negatively affect the plant communities that elk (Cervus elaphus), deer (Odocoileus sp), and a broader diversity of other species rely on.⁵⁴

Contrary to assertions made by proponents of wildlife killing contests, preventing predation is not a reliable means of increasing ungulate abundance for the conservation of the species⁵⁵ nor hunter success,⁵⁶ and the latter is not supported by current policy.⁵⁷ The key to maintaining thriving populations of wild ungulates is protecting breeding females and maintaining high-quality habitat and thus adequate nutrition for herds.⁵⁸⁵⁹

Science and ethics agree: Individuals matter

Conservationists and predator hunters alike do not typically address the questionable moral legitimacy of lethal management. Traditional conservation likes to think of lethal measures, such as hunting, trapping, and poisoning, as an unproblematic tool for achieving management goals. The legitimacy of this rests on the assumption that “individuals do not matter,” itself a reflection that only people and/or ecosystems, not individual animals, have intrinsic moral value. Despite ethical arguments against lethal control of wildlife populations, recreational trapping, sport hunting, and culling are routinely used for the supposed management of wolves in BC.

In the same way caring for a family pet can teach children the values of compassion and respect, celebrating the mass killing of predators can undermine the development of empathy and encourage violence towards living beings, nonhuman and human.⁶⁰ As with our own dogs and cats, many nonhuman animals are feeling and thinking creatures and have inherent value in their own right.⁶¹ In other words, individual animals as well as ecological communities have moral value apart from any use we may have for them. This means we have ethical responsibilities to targeted species and to biodiversity, and need to consider the well-being of both. Whether it is pest, nuisance or hyperabundant, the “bad” labels we impose upon wildlife often breed a detachment from these moral obligations and seek to justify the indiscriminate killing of these animals under the guise of conservation.

Wildlife welfare is at stake

In some areas in BC, the number of wolves killed because of incentive programs is likely significant,⁶² yet the BC government fails to recognize the far-reaching adverse effects this could have not only on the environment, but also on the health and wellbeing of targeted populations and individuals.⁶³ For example, research shows that heavily hunted wolves have higher levels of stress and reproductive hormones;⁶⁴ physiological effects that disrupt their intricate social structure and could have evolutionary consequences. Furthermore, the loss of individuals is often highly disruptive while the loss of multiple members can have a detrimental effect on the stability and persistence of the pack.⁶⁵ This is compounded because social animals like wolves establish strong affective bonds with family members and mourn their loss.⁶⁶

Although rarely considered, the integrity of animal habitats and their populations are closely linked to the welfare of the individual animals,⁶⁷ and human disturbances, such as intensified hunting and trapping efforts, can also cause suffering of individuals through displacement, starvation, and reduced security.

Intense localized killing jeopardizes genetic variability

In BC, the opportunity to hunt or trap wildlife supposedly comes with the obligation to adhere to conservation principles, including the assurance that such activities will not compromise the population viability and genetic variability of hunted species. Intense localized killing of a seemingly abundant and resilient species violates this principle as it can lead to loss of genetic diversity and unexpected hybridization events that encumber future conservation efforts. For example, the killing of wolves transforms the genetic composition of wolf populations by reducing genetic diversity and providing the opportunity for introgression by coyotes.⁶⁸⁶⁹

The fate of large carnivores is closely tied to sociology

Because the presence of self-sustaining populations of large carnivores is indicative of a healthy environment, the status of large carnivores provides a useful point of entry to broader conservation issues, management options, political decisions, and public values. Considering socially acceptable and sustainable policies, there is broad agreement among the BC public about the positive value of maintaining healthy populations of wolves, bears, cougars and their prey. Support might also exist concerning the appropriateness of killing predators when the public believes prey are being kept well below the environmental carrying capacity by predators, and the scarcity of prey is adversely affecting subsistence users of ungulates. Similar to that of centuries past, the fate of large carnivores continues to be more closely tied to sociology than biology.⁷⁰

The social license to hunt large carnivores continues to erode

Wildlife killing contests reflect poorly on the overall hunting community, stirring public outrage that has the potential to erode the broader social license that is currently afforded to hunters.⁷¹ Although only a ‘fringe’ minority of hunters defend the gratuitous killing of carnivores for trophy,⁷² the actions of few can jeopardize the reputation of many who are hunting animals for meat, a practice supported by more than two-in-three British Columbians.⁷³

Furthermore, violation of ethical hunting principles has led to broader scrutiny, many questioning the legitimacy of a wildlife management system that permits, and even incentivizes, the killing of animals that are typically not eaten. Polling statistics have suggested that most British Columbians find such a notion antiquated and unacceptable, with only 7% of respondents openly supporting trophy hunting (Insights West, 2015).⁷⁴ Opposition to trophy hunting (81%) is widespread in Canada. Most Canadians consider wolves, one of the most common targets in wildlife killing contests, as important members of ecosystems (83%) and an iconic species (77%) that should be protected.⁷⁵

Societal values and attitudes play an important role in shaping policy across North America, particularly when it comes to the killing of large carnivores for sport or trophies. For example, in 1990, a public-initiated ballot measure resulted in an end to cougar hunting in California. Nearly three decades later, in 2017, the BC government banned grizzly bear hunting, citing widespread opposition owing to misaligned values. Wildlife killing contests not only jeopardize the social sustainability of hunting but also erode public trust in wildlife management.

British Columbia stands alone on the West Coast

Looking to our neighbours to the south, momentum is growing to ban wildlife killing contests across the United States. The US Congress recently reintroduced legislation to prohibit wildlife killing contests on more than 500 million acres of US public lands⁷⁶ while ten states, including California, Oregon, and Washington, have already outlawed these contests within their borders. Securing protections for apex predators in BC is vital for maintaining ecological balance and resilience, particularly in the face of global biodiversity loss.

1. Paquet PC, Hackman A. 1995. Large carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Toronto, Ontario, and Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund Canada and World Wildlife Fund US.
2. Creston Valley Rod and Gun Club. Ungulate Survival – Predator Control. 2023 [accessed 2023 Dec 9] www.crestonvalleyrodandgunclub.org/2020/02/ungulate-survival-predator-control.html archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20231209155202/http://www.crestonvalleyrodandgunclub.org/2020/02/ungulate-survival-predator-control.html
3. The intrinsic value of an animal refers to the unconditional value it possesses in its own right, neither conferred nor revocable.
4. Ethics are moral principles or values that distinguish between right and wrong; they are unwritten rules that society expects to be followed.
5. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Management Plan for the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; 2014 p. 48. https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grey_wolf_management_plan.pdf
6. BC Ministry of Forests. 2022-2024 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. Victoria BC: BC Ministry of Forests; 2022 p 84.
7. Boynton S. 2019 Mar 10. B.C. Interior hunting groups under fire for ‘wolf-whacking’ contests. Global News. [accessed 2024 Aug 1] https://globalnews.ca/news/5041645/bc-interior-wildlife-killing-contests/
8. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. RE: Ending the Wolf Cull Program and Addressing Misguided Wildlife Management Policy. Vancouver BC: UBCIC; 2021. https://pacificwild.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Union-of-BC-Indian-Chiefs-Letter-of-Support.pdf
9. Conservation coalition. Open Letter By Coalition Asking BC Government To End ‘wildlife Killing Contests’. Vancouver BC: 2022 Dec 5. https://www.hsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/WKC-Open-Letter-Final-1.pdf
10. Open Letter By Coalition Asking BC Government To End Three ‘wildlife Killing Contests’. BC: Coalition; 2019 Mar 10. https://purrandroar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/d86b6-openletterre.wildlifekillingcontestsmar102019.pdf
11. A hoofed mammal, such as deer, elk, caribou, moose, mountain goat, bighorn sheep.
12. Guide outfitters association of British Columbia. Conservation at work. GOABC: 2017 p 21. Accessed 2024 June 5. https://www.goabc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/conservationatwork-web-opt.pdf
13. Ministry of Forests. 2020-2022 Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis. Victoria BC: B.C. Ministry of Forests; 2020 p 97.
14. For example, wolves and coyotes are both classified as Class 3 species under the BC Fur Management Program, meaning trappers are encouraged to kill these animals, particularly in areas where conflicts with human interests occur.
15. For example, it is legal to use bait and recorded or electronic calls to hunt some predator species.
16. The Boone and Crockett Club define fair chase as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.
17. Proulx G, Brook RK, Cattet M, Darimont C, Paquet PC. 2015. Poisoning wolves with strychnine is unacceptable in experimental studies and conservation programmes. Environmental Conservation. 43(1):1–2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892915000211.
18. Sherley M. 2007. Is sodium fluoroacetate (1080) a humane poison? Animal Welfare. 16(4):449–458. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S096272860002738X.
19. Under the Wildlife Act, “dangerous wildlife” is defined as (a) bear, cougar, coyote or wolf, or (b) a species of wildlife that is prescribed as dangerous wildlife.
20. Proulx G, Rodtka D, Barrett MW, Cattet M, Dekker D, Moffatt E, Powell RA. 2015. Humaneness and selectivity of killing neck snares used to capture canids in Canada: A review. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management. 4:55-65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272151929_Humaneness_and_selectivity_of_killing_neck_snares_used_to_capture_canids_in_Canada_a_review_Can_Wildl_Biol_Manag_455-65
21. Hebblewhite M, White CA, Nietvelt CG, McKenzie JA, Hurd TE, Fryxell JM, Bayley SE, Paquet PC. 2005. Human Activity Mediates a Trophic Cascade Caused by Wolves. Ecology. 86(8):2135–2144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1269.
22. Beschta RL, Ripple WJ. 2007. Wolves, elk, and aspen in the winter range of Jasper National Park, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 37(10):1873–1885. doi:https://doi.org/10.1139/x07-017. [accessed 2021 Nov 16]. https://trophiccascades.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/trophic/files/Beschta%20-Ripple-2007-Jasper.pdf.
23. It is important to note that evidence of trophic cascades caused by wolves are context-dependent, and in places like Yellowstone National Park, there are competing and very complex arguments around whether wolves alone are driving regrowth of willow and aspen by changing elk behaviour. Furthermore, additional factors such as drought, harsh winters, disease, other predators, and hunting contributed to the decline of elk in the ecosystem.
24. Allendorf FW, Hard JJ. 2009. Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(Supplement_1):9987–9994. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901069106. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702803/.
25. A trophic cascade refers to a predator’s impact “trickling down one more feeding level to affect the density and/or behavior of the prey’s prey”: Silliman BR, Angelini C. 2012. Trophic Cascades Across Diverse Plant Ecosystems | Learn Science at Scitable. Naturecom. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/trophic-cascades-across-diverse-plant-ecosystems-80060347/.
26. Terborgh T, Estes J A, Paquet P, Ralls K, Boyd-Heger D, Miller B, Noss RF. 1999. Chapter 3: The Role of Top Carnivores in Regulating Terrestrial Ecosystems. In M. E. Soule & J. Terborgh (Eds.), Continental conservation: Scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. P 39-64. Island Press.
27. Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, et al. 2014. Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores. Science. 343(6167):1241484–1241484. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484.
28. Winnie J, Creel S. 2017. The many effects of carnivores on their prey and their implications for trophic cascades, and ecosystem structure and function. Food Webs. 12:88–94. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.09.002.
29. Hoeks S, Huijbregts MAJ, Busana M, Harfoot MBJ, Svenning J, Santini L. 2020. Mechanistic insights into the role of large carnivores for ecosystem structure and functioning. Ecography. 43(12):1752–1763. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05191.
30. Guerin V. 2020. θə stqayeʔ ʔə ƛ̓ səl̓ilwətaʔł ʔiʔ tə nec̓ sx̌ʷix̌ʷəy̓em̓: She-Wolf and other Tsleil-Waututh narratives.
31. Williamson C. 2011. Ojibwe and Canis Lupus: cultural, historical, and political influences on contemporary wolf management in the Great Lakes region. Lawrence University Honors Projects. 32. https://lux.lawrence.edu/luhp/32
32. O’Bryan CJ, Braczkowski AR, Beyer HL, Carter NH, Watson JEM, McDonald-Madden E. 2018. The contribution of predators and scavengers to human well-being. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2(2):229–236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0421-2. [accessed 2019 Apr 29]. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0421-2.
33. Raynor JL, Grainger CA, Parker DP. 2021. Wolves make roadways safer, generating large economic returns to predator conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118(22). doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023251118.
34. Duffield JW, Neher CJ, Patterson DA. 2008. Wolf recovery in Yellowstone: park visitor attitudes, expenditures, and economic impacts. George Wright Society. The George Wright Forum: Vol 25, No 1, p. 13-19).
35. Schaller DT. 1996. Ecocenter as Tourist Attraction: Ely and the International Wolf Center.
36. Legitimate purposes include for food and in self-defense. Notably, attacks on humans by wolves are extremely rare.
37. Treves A, Kapp KJ, MacFarland DM. 2010. American black bear nuisance complaints and hunter take. Ursus. 21(1):30–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.2192/09gr012.1.
38. Obbard ME, Howe EJ, Wall LL, Allison B, Black R, Davis P, Dix-Gibson L, Gatt M, Hall MN. 2014. Relationships among food availability, harvest, and human–bear conflict at landscape scales in Ontario, Canada. Ursus. 25(2):98. doi:https://doi.org/10.2192/ursus-d-13-00018.1.
39. Artelle KA, Anderson SC, Reynolds JD, Cooper AB, Paquet PC, Darimont CT. 2016. Ecology of conflict: marine food supply affects human-wildlife interactions on land. Scientific Reports. 6(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25936.
40. Raithel JD, Reynolds-Hogland MJ, Koons DN, Carr PC, Aubry LM. 2016. Recreational harvest and incident-response management reduce human-carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape. Durant S, editor. Journal of Applied Ecology. 54(5):1552–1562. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12830. [accessed 2019 Nov 25]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12830/full.
41. Garshelis DL, Noyce KV, St-Louis V. 2020. Population reduction by hunting helps control human–wildlife conflicts for a species that is a conservation success story. Yue B-S, editor. PLOS ONE. 15(8):e0237274. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237274.
42. Northrup JM, Howe E, Inglis J, Newton E, Obbard ME, Pond B, Potter D. 2023 Jan 26. Experimental test of the efficacy of hunting for controlling human–wildlife conflict. The Journal of Wildlife Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22363.
43. Artelle K, et al. Ecology of conflict: marine food supply affects human-wildlife interactions on land. 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25936.
44. Northrup JM, Howe E, Inglis J, Newton E, Obbard ME, Pond B, Potter D. 2023 Jan 26. Experimental test of the efficacy of hunting for controlling human–wildlife conflict. The Journal of Wildlife Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22363.
45. Howe EJ, Obbard ME, Black R, Wall LL. 2010. Do public complaints reflect trends in human–bear conflict? Ursus. 21(2):131–142. doi:https://doi.org/10.2192/09gr013.1.
46. Johnson HE, Breck SW, Baruch-Mordo S, Lewis D, Lackey CW, Wilson KS, Broderick JW, Mao J, Beckmann JP. 2015. Shifting perceptions of risk and reward: Dynamic selection for human development by black bears in the western United States. Biological Conservation. 187:164–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.014.
47. Wielgus RB, Peebles KA. 2014. Effects of Wolf Mortality on Livestock Depredations. Bump JK, editor. PLoS ONE. 9(12):e113505. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113505.
48. Santiago-Avila FJ, Cornman AM, Treves A. 2018. Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors. Apollonio M, editor. PLOS ONE. 13(1):e0189729. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189729.
49. Kunkel KE, Ruth TK, Pletscher DH, Hornocker MG. 1999. Winter prey selection by wolves and cougars in and near Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63, 901–910.
50. Wright GJ, Peterson RO, Smith DW, Lemke TO. 2006. Selection of northern Yellowstone elk by gray wolves and hunters. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(4), 1070–1078. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1070:SONYEB]2.0.CO;2
51. Krumm CE, Conner MM, Hobbs NT, Hunter DO, Miller MW. 2009. Mountain lions prey selectively on prion-infected mule deer. Biology Letters. 6(2):209–211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0742.
52. Tanner E, White A, Acevedo P, Balseiro A, Marcos J, Gortázar C. 2019. Wolves contribute to disease control in a multi-host system. Scientific Reports. 9(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44148-9.
53. Hoy SR, Vucetich JA, Peterson RO. 2022. The Role of Wolves in Regulating a Chronic Non-communicable Disease, Osteoarthritis, in Prey Populations. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.819137.
54. Paquet PC, Miller B, Kunkel K, Reading RP, Phillips MK. 2010. Chapter 3: The Importance of Large Carnivores. In RP Reading, B Miller, AL Masching, R Edward, MK Phillips (Eds.), Awakening Spirits: Wolves in the Southern Rockies (pp. 49-59). Fulcrum Publishing.
55. Hurley MA, Unsworth JW, Zager P, Hebblewhite M, Garton EO, Montgomery DM, Skalski JR, Maycock CL. 2011. Demographic response of mule deer to experimental reduction of coyotes and mountain lions in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs. 178(1):1–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.4.
56. Miller SD, Person DK, Bowyer RT. 2022. Efficacy of Killing Large Carnivores to Enhance Moose Harvests: New Insights from a Long-Term View. Diversity. 14(11):939. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110939.
57. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2014. Management Plan for the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. p. 48. https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grey_wolf_management_plan.pdf
58. Bishop CJ, White GC, Freddy DJ, Watkins BE, Stephenson TR. 2009. Effect of Enhanced Nutrition on Mule Deer Population Rate of Change. Wildlife Monographs. 172:1–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-107.
59. Monteith KL, Bleich VC, Stephenson TR, Pierce BM, Conner MM, Kie JG, Bowyer RT. 2014. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: Effects of nutrition in a variable environment. Wildlife Monographs. 186(1):1–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1011.
60. Mota-Rojas D, Monsalve S, Lezama-García K, Mora-Medina P, Domínguez-Oliva A, Ramírez-Necoechea R, Garcia R de CM. 2022. Animal Abuse as an Indicator of Domestic Violence: One Health, One Welfare Approach. Animals. 12(8):977. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080977. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/8/977/htm.
61. Safina C. 2018. Beyond words: What animals think and feel. In Farming, Food and Nature (pp. 75-85). Routledge.
62. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2014. Management Plan for the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria, BC. p. 48. https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/grey_wolf_management_plan.pdf
63. Paquet PC, Miller B, Kunkel K, Reading RP, Phillips MK. 2010. Chapter 3: The Importance of Large Carnivores. In RP Reading, B Miller, AL Masching, R Edward, MK Phillips (Eds.). Awakening Spirits: Wolves in the Southern Rockies. P. 49-59. Fulcrum Publishing.
64. Bryan HM, Smits JEG, Koren L, Paquet PC, Wynne‐Edwards KE, Musiani M. 2014. Heavily hunted wolves have higher stress and reproductive steroids than wolves with lower hunting pressure. Grindstaff J, editor. Functional Ecology. 29(3):347–356. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12354.
65. Cassidy KA, Borg BL, Klauder KJ, Sorum MS, Thomas‐Kuzilik R, Dewey SR, Stephenson JA, Stahler DR, Gable TD, Bump JK, et al. 2023. Human‐caused mortality triggers pack instability in gray wolves. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 21(8). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2597.
66. Bekoff M. 2024. The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy—and why they matter. New World Library.
67. Paquet P, Darimont C. 2010. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: two sides of the same coin? Animal Welfare. 19(2):177–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600001433.
68. vonHoldt BM, Kays R, Pollinger JP, Wayne RK. 2016. Admixture mapping identifies introgressed genomic regions in North American canids. Molecular Ecology. 25(11):2443–2453. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13667.
69. Wheeldon T, White BN. 2008. Genetic analysis of historic western Great Lakes region wolf samples reveals early Canis lupus / lycaon hybridization. Biology Letters. 5(1):101–104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0516.
70. Paquet PC, Hackman A. 1995. Large carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Toronto, Ontario, and Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund Canada and World Wildlife Fund US.
71. Darimont CT, Hall H, Eckert L, Mihalik I, Artelle K, Treves A, Paquet PC. 2021. Large carnivore hunting and the social license to hunt. Conservation Biology. 35(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13657.
72. Darimont CT. 2018 January 23. Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat. The Globe and Mail. 
73. Canseco M. 2023 September. Negative View of Using Animals in Rodeos Increases in Canada. Research Co.
74. Mason G. 2015 October. Opposition to trophy hunting overwhelming, poll finds amid grizzly debate. The Globe and Mail.
75. Rutherford S, V.-L. Fraser-Celin, Hager HA, Fox L, Hofman A. 2024 Jun 1. The social landscape of wolves in Canada – preliminary findings. Human Dimensions of Wildlife.:1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2024.2360741.
76. Project Coyote. 2024 May 22. House Bill Would Ban Wildlife Killing Contests on Public Lands. Press release.

You can help

Raincoast’s in-house scientists, collaborating graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and professors make us unique among conservation groups. We work with First Nations, academic institutions, government, and other NGOs to build support and inform decisions that protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and the wildlife that depend on them. We conduct ethically applied, process-oriented, and hypothesis-driven research that has immediate and relevant utility for conservation deliberations and the collective body of scientific knowledge.

We investigate to understand coastal species and processes. We inform by bringing science to decision-makers and communities. We inspire action to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats.