Statements vs. Facts: Do government statements always align with evidence?

August 4, 2025

• •
• •
• •

• Species at Risk
• Wildlife
• WLA Archive

 

By Ruiping Luo

Read the PDF version here.

 

Alberta saw a lot of changes in the past year for wildlife management, expanding hunting and trapping opportunities in the province. But was there any justification for the changes? Todd Loewen, Alberta Minister of Forestry and Parks, has certainly said there is, but AWA’s repeated requests for evidence have been largely ignored or dismissed.

Meanwhile, the available evidence mostly contradicts Loewen’s statements, suggesting that these decisions are unsustainable and could have devastating consequences on wildlife. Here, we looked at some of the statements made by the government and compared them to actual evidence available on the topic.

This is part 2, as we examine a change affecting Alberta’s furbearers and cougars.

The policy change: In November 2024, trapping limits were removed for furbearing animals, including wolverine, fisher, river otter and Canada lynx. Previously, trapping limits restricted the harvest of sensitive species.

What the government said: [The quota system was] indefensible, as it was outdated and not based on any real science. (Government of Alberta statement, reported by CBC news, Dec. 2024).

The evidence: Harvest quotas have long been established to control wildlife populations, preventing overexploitation and population collapse. Without quotas, even large and robust populations can be lost. The most well-known example of this may be the Atlantic cod fisheries, where a lack of regulation led to the devastation of once-abundant cod. Despite over 30 years of strict limits since the collapse, populations have still not recovered. Closer to home, passenger pigeons, once one of the most numerous birds in the world, are now extinct because of overhunting and commercial exploitation. Trapping and the fur trade reduced a population of beavers over 60 million strong to only a few hundred thousand, and affected many other species, including wolverine, fisher, otter and lynx. The Alberta Guide to Trapping Regulations itself notes that quota and accurate data “prevents the overharvest of sensitive species of furbearers, ensuring a viable resource for the future.”

In fact, there is already considerable science pointing to previous quotas being too high. Wolverine, one of the most vulnerable furbearers, is known to be declining. A 2019 study recommended wolverine trapping be reduced by 50 percent or more, and a 2022 study verified that the annual harvest rate was too high for the current population. In 2024, a study was published that estimated 955 wolverines in Alberta, with only 544 adults, which is below International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standards for Threatened species. Fisher harvest has also been shown as unsustainable, given the population growth, with fisher tooth analysis showing Alberta’s population is not meeting management targets. As with wolverines, fisher decline is likely accelerated by trapping.

What the government said: Under the new framework, trappers will register their harvests, and their logbooks will provide accurate, real-time data on furbearer populations in each area, ensuring that we have the information needed to make informed decisions (Alberta Forestry and Parks spokesperson Alexandru Cioban, reported by CTV news, Nov. 2024).

The evidence: It is difficult, if not impossible, to get accurate population estimates from trapping data, which is often biased and misleading. The 2001 Alberta Furbearer Harvest Data Analysis noted, “Alberta data appears to suffer from a lack of reliability that has plagued furbearer harvest data from across North America,” and “independent verification (long-term research studies) is required to verify cause-effect relationships between population indices and population size.” These verification studies are still largely lacking. Basically, relying on trapping data alone is not enough for an accurate population count, and should not be used to make wildlife management decisions.

There is more than enough information to support imposing trapping limits for these furbearers. In fact, all evidence suggests limits should be lowered, and there is no reason to allow unlimited trapping of these animals.

The policy change: In March, female cougar quotas were more than doubled, and Cougar Management Areas (where cougar hunting is allowed) were expanded to include Cypress Hills and several northern regions, with these areas opened for cougar hunting with the use of off-leash dogs in December.

What the government said: That [cougar] management plan indicates that we want to keep a healthy population of cougars on the landscape of about 1,500 animals. Presently, we have about 2,000 cougars in the province (Todd Loewen, reported by Global News, Dec. 2024).

The evidence: While the 2012 Cougar Management Plan does estimate a population of 2,050 cougars in Alberta, the 2019 population estimate was only 1,559 cougars, with an adult population of 795 cougars. Additionally, Alberta’s Cougar Management Plan lists as an objective, “Maintain a viable population of at least 1,500 cougars on provincial lands in Alberta.” This means that 1,500 cougars is a minimum, and the Alberta population is already precariously close to that minimum.

What the government said: What [biologists] say and what’s in the cougar management plan [for harvest rates] is actually 20 percent [of cougars can be harvested]. (Todd Loewen, interview with CBC, Dec. 2024).

The evidence: Twenty percent is a maximum set for all human-caused mortality, including vehicle collisions and accidental trapping, which is already increasing. The harvest target set by current science is 14 to 16 percent of the estimated adult population. This rate matches the average annual growth rate and allows for a more stable social structure. At an adult population of 795 individuals, that would be roughly 111 to 127 cougars. The current quota of 133 cougars, which does not include additional guide-outfitter allocations, is already outside the target range.

What the government said: We’ve extended up into the Peace Country where there’s been a lot of negative interaction between cougars and landowners and individuals (Todd Loewen, CBC Radio Interview, Dec. 5).

The evidence: Cougar hunting is unlikely to reduce negative interactions; hunting has consistently been shown to increase human-cougar conflicts. According to the province’s reports on cougar mortality, more problem cougars must be killed in years with high human-caused mortality, such as hunting. This suggests that, as hunting is expanded, we can expect to see more cougar-human conflicts, not less. Culling cougars will not improve human-cougar interactions, nor is there any justification for the high quotas that have been imposed.

This isn’t just about hunting or wildlife management anymore. This is about the integrity of our government. What messages are we sending by allowing our ministers to continue giving false and misleading information?