March 3, 1999 Bitterroot Star Letter to the editor by Jim Shockley Representative House District 61: Bear info misinterpreted
Recently the media carried the news that biologists working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had determined that the Bitterroot Selway Wilderness, and the area immediately adjoining the wilderness, could sustain a grizzly bear population of a little over 300 animals. This information was held out as evidence that the introduction of grizzly bears into the wilderness was a viable proposition. In fact the study demonstrates that grizzly bears should not be introduced into the Selway Bitterroot.
On 12 January 1999, Dr. Lance Craighead, noted expert on the grizzly bear, appeared before the House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Committee and testified that his best guess was that the minimum viable population of grizzly bears was 1,000. Dr. Craighead said that the smallest known healthy population of bears was about 3,000. The number 1,000 reflected the minimum number of animals needed to maintain a gene pool. The proponents of the reintroduction of the bear know of this problem, but ignore it unless pressed, as Dr. Craighead was in the Committee hearing.
When forced to address this issue they talk about the bears in the Bitterroot Selway moving along "corridors" between the Yellowstone ecosystem and populations that exist in and around Glacier and the Bob Marshall Wilderness.
There is no evidence that grizzlies will move along these "corridors", in fact there is significant evidence to the contrary. In northwestern Montana forest roads are closed because they impact adversely on the bear's ability to survive. Have the proponents of grizzly reintroduction noticed 1-90, or for that matter U.S. 93 and other development north of the Bitterroot Selway? It is better if one looks east towards Yellowstone from the Bitterroot Selway, but it does not look like a bear "corridor" to any reasonable person. No one has demonstrated that any bear has ever made the trip between these ecosystems in the last 50 years, or will do it at this time. Is it likely that even if one bear did make such a trip occasionally that it would happen often enough to be significant to a gene pool?
If Dr. Craighead, or my friend Sterling Miller (another expert mentioned in the media on the subject of bear reintroduction) care to respond, I invite their comments. No comment will be interpreted as agreement with the substance of this letter.
CAG Comment
Less we lose site of the real purpose of grizzly bear reintroduction it would be wise to read what people who know think about the habitat in the Selway Bitterroot Frank Church Wildernesses.
This is not about grizzly bears -- this is about power.