“], “filter”: { “nextExceptions”: “img, blockquote, div”, “nextContainsExceptions”: “img, blockquote, a.btn, a.o-button”} }”>
Heading out the door? Read this article on the new Outside+ app available now on iOS devices for members!
>”,”name”:”in-content-cta”,”type”:”link”}}”>Download the app.
This spring, a four-year-old male grizzly bear with a problematic past swam through frigid waters and dangerous currents to relocate himself to Texada Island, just northwest of Vancouver in British Columbia. Texada has historically lacked its own bear population. But the arrival of “Tex” has challenged the community’s perspectives surrounding conservation and wildlife management.
Tex the grizzly has a sizable rap sheet. According to The Guardian, conservation officers twice moved the bear to Jervis Inlet in Vancouver Bay after he’d been spotted wandering near schools and the downtown in the towns of Gibsons and Sechelt. The second time, they tagged him and put him in the far end of the bay to no avail. Within weeks of each relocation, Tex braved a 46-mile journey to his previous habitat on the Sushine Coast.
Early this spring, his behavior seemed to worsen when he began breaking into fishing boats in pursuit of bait. On one occasion, he also followed two hikers on a trail, who narrowly escaped an encounter by stepping into a river.
Tex’s most recent journey has sparked a fierce debate about his future between the locals of Texada island, provincial officials, First Nations, and conservationists. Locals largely agree that he doesn’t have a future on the island, and that his presence is dangerous to those who live on the island.
The Mamalilikulla First Nation wants to move the bear 100 miles north of Texada, but is unable to do so without the permission of the B.C. Conservation Officer Service. Thus far, the province’s conservation office has not been cooperative, saying that the bear’s history precludes him from being a relocation candidate.
In a letter to Tamara Davidson, British Columbia’s minister of wildlife and parks, bear biologist Wayne McCroy argued that bear behavior like Tex’s is not abnormal for a juvenile animal, and that he could still be successfully relocated.
John Powell, the chief of Mamalilikulla First Nation told the Times Colonist that the grizzly bear is a “ticking time bomb,” and that, he thinks, “inevitably the bear is going to run into a human or animal and it’s going to have a negative engagement. Texada is not a big place … It’s going to die there.”
And Powell might be right: Shortly after the bear stalked hikers in the Powell River area in May, he made his journey to Texada where he followed a Texada resident home while she was out with her dog and horse.
Residents have reported sightings of Tex near schools, stores and farms. And early this month, conservation officers responded to a report of a grizzly chasing livestock on a ranch. While no livestock were injured at the time, conservation officers encouraged residents to take precautions against the bear.
McCroy agrees with Powell’s observation that a relocation north would be an ideal habitat for Tex since it is, “dominated by high protein Lyngby’s sedge – which is one of the preferred spring-early summer plant foods for coastal grizzly bears.”
While the B.C. Conservation Officer Service generally adheres to a “two strike” policy, McCroy suggests that a relocation further north could still be beneficial even if Tex continues moving,
“Even given the possibility that the bear may not remain in the area if translocated again, I fully support Chief John’s wishes to have the bear taken there,” he wrote. “For one thing the area if uninhabited and also it is much further away than the two previous translocation sites in Jarvis Inlet.”
The B.C. Conservation Officer Service’s position is that relocation is not an option. Tamara Davidson, minister of environment and parks of the Conservation Officer Service and Randene Neill, the minister of water, land and resource stewardship wrote in a statement that “while the province will relocate bears if circumstances allow, in this case, it would not be in the interest of public safety to relocate the bear a third time.”
They added, “We want to be very clear: there is no kill order on this bear. However, it is also our responsibility to keep people safe and if further behaviour by the grizzly bear occurs that threatens public safety, conservation officers will respond to those situations.”
