More work needed to protect grizzly bears from trains, says conservationist

A conservationist is questioning the direction Parks Canada and CP rail are going to mitigate human-caused bear deaths.

Jim Pissot, of the WildCanada Conservation Alliance, is reacting to the results of a five-year research project.

He called the study impressive, but said the mitigation work needs to go further.

Pissot said CP should be treated the same way tourists are if they get caught feeding wildlife.

He blames grain as the number one factor causing grizzly bear mortality in Banff and Yoho National Park and thinks Parks Canada should hold the company accountable.

Parks Canada said it works closely with CP rail.

CP points out a research project dismissed the notion that grain is the main contributor to bear mortality in the mountain parks.

Both Parks Canada and CP have laid out a list of ongoing projects they are involved in to keep bears away from the tracks, including getting rid of Buffalo berry bushes and burning new habitats to attract them to safer areas.

CP said it has spent millions of dollars fixing leaky grain cars and helped fund the most recent study.

On Tuesday the company issued this statement:

“Over the years, people have become entrenched in their positions on this very important topic. That is why, CP, working closely with Parks Canada, decided it was necessary to engage the academic community – who could provide sound, unbiased, and peer-reviewed science.

The perception that the largest contributing factor to grizzly bear mortality risk on the tracks is grain was not supported by the important research that was completed by Parks Canada and Universities of Alberta and Calgary.

Prior to the start of the intensive phase of the research program, the grain hopper car gate replacement had been completed. While not quantified as part of the research, this work was a tremendous success and there is much less grain reported on the tracks.

The research has succeeded in identifying opportunities like improving vegetation management along the railway and installing electromats at select locations to deter bears.”

In the past decade, 10 grizzly bears have been reported as being killed by trains in Banff and Yoho National Parks.

It’s estimated there are only about 60 grizzly bears left.

© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.



3 thoughts on “More work needed to protect grizzly bears from trains, says conservationist

  1. Bear deaths usually boil down to some form of human encroachment: destruction of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, extraction industries, attractants (like grain falling off train cars), hunting (recreational killing), poaching, ranching in bear habitat or very close by, lack of safe corridors over or under roads and tracks. There is often development nearby with citizens “rights” to chickens, bird feeders, garbage. If bears are to survive in the wild, they must have wilderness protected, free of hunters, free of ranching, safe passage, no attractants. People who are lucky enough to live in bear environs are mandated to live with the bears, or other predators, and accommodate coexistence. Else it is continuing encroachment on already drastic shrinkage of habitat.

    Bear Encroachment

    Two Montana grizzly encounters leave hunters injured
    Both men taken to the hospital and released
    Check out this story on

    Search continues for arsonist after 15 fires near Libby Three more fires were reported in the Kootenai National Forest
    Check out this story on

    Mandatory food storage proposed on Smith River
    The move comes after a number of run-ins between black bears and humans.
    Check out this story on
    Bear Encroachment: FWP killing bears around Nye MT to protect bee hives: It, unprotected bee hives, is baiting, is putting out an attractant, is encroachment on the wild; and FWP is continuing a war on wildlife rather than asking the farmer/rancher, beehive owners in this instance, live with wildlife and use nonlethal management and secure attractants.

  2. Isn’t that strange. You’d think that grain spillage would equate with money loss – and that company people would be scrambling all over the train tracks to recover every last penny? Or to devise something so that spillage is eliminated? Or maybe the ‘cost benefit analysis’ comes out in favor of the status quo? We’re a strange lot, aren’t we.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s