Excerpt from 19th Annual Public Land Law conference, April 16, 17, 1998 UM Law Building, Castle Room. [This system is beautifully crafted to give the appearance that the participants had some kind of say in the outcome. Not so! In the final analysis the Secretary of Interior and the eccoterrorists, supported by the Clinton/Gore Administration, will make the decision.]
In December 1993, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee convened a hearing in Denver to discuss reintroducing grizzly bear, a threatened species in the lower 48 states, to public lands in central Idaho and far-western Montana. Dan Johnson representing the Resource Organization on Timber Supply (ROOTS) expressed the timber industry 's ardent opposition to bringing bears back to Idaho. But he added, if it was going to happen, bears were going to be reintroduced, then the industry wanted a voice in how it was going to be done.
This "but" caught the ears of Tom France of the National Wildlife Federation and Hank Fischer from Defenders of Wildlife. After the meeting, they asked Johnson what his stance meant. If the bears were to be reintroduced, Johnson explained; the timber industry wanted some say in the process, some assurance against land use restrictions that would hurt business or cost jobs. In that answer, the kernel of a partnership was sown.
Comment by CAG
April 16 and 17 1998 a meeting was held in Missoula to specifically talk about the "colaborative process" and the management of public land.
End CAG Comments
The emerging partnership ran against type. Loggers and conservationists, had been traditional adversaries, at odds over nearly every past land and species protection issue. What's more, these initial meetings took place in the wake of the much publicized reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park, a 17 year struggle that succeeded in bringing wolves back to the park but divided communities in the process. The very possibility of the timber industry and conservation organizations working together on a wildlife reintroduction plan seemed radical in the first stages of the ensuing project.
The two sides met initially at Lochsa Lodge near the summit of Lolo Pass in Idaho. The self described "Bitterroot Grizzly Bear reintroduction Coalition was made up of Tom France, Hank Fischer; Dan Johnson, whose ROOTS group is a Northwestern trade association of the timber industry and its workers; Mike Roy, a wildlife biologist also with the National Wildlife Federation; Seth Diamond, a former Forest Service biologist with the Intermountain Forest Industry Association (IFIA) representing. most of the timber companies and sawmills in the Northwest; and Bill Nulligan, a former Weyerhauser employee and owner of the Three Rivers Timber mill in Idaho. This group began meeting in the winter of 1994. The more they spoke the more they realized that grizzly bear reintroduction didn't have to be drawn out and divisive. Rather, it could be achieved on common ground that satisfied both species needs and industry interests. The coalition eventually produced a "Principles Paper" in January of 1995 which detailed the group's hopes and concerns about grizzly reintroduction and became the inspiration for the plan that was drafted soon afterwards.
Little did this group (and the public), other than those connected to the bureaucracy in high places [and very likely Tom France and the National Wildlife Federation], know the real objective of grizzly bear reintroduction which is to gain a critical link in the chain of core areas, corridors and buffer zones they hope will eventually stretch from the Yukon to the Yellowstone and beyond. President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore's dream of Man and the Biosphere (MAB), spawned by the United Nations, is fast becoming a reality.
The public has no idea what is going on and that power plays by this coalition has resulted in road closures, trail closures, land use restrictions and a tightening of controls on people all the way from Alaska to Texas and beyond. The end result is less state's rights, less local control and more big federal government, and, sad but true, socialism.
End CAG Comments
This plan, titled Rule 10(j) Reintroduction of grizzly Bears into the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area under the Endangered Species Act, is as "radical" as the process by which it was created. It calls for a population of grizzly bears to be released in the "Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area" which includes the 1.4-million-acre Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the 2.4 million acre Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, both in the Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Comments by CAG
The American public bought the reintroduction "based" upon the following misrepresentation of fact "...there isn't a hint of civilization near by." (Even CAG would vote to reintroduce [not exploite] grizzly bears if that were the situation and there was an adequate quality food supply.
According to the United States Forest Service pamphlet on grizzly bear recovery, studies suggest that 5,500 square mile area in the ecosystem could support grizzlies at the density of one bear per 25-30 square miles.
Senator Conrad Burns of Montana and Senator Larry Craig of Idaho perused the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and immediately asked congress to allocate $75,000 to conduct a study to determine if there is adequate food supply in the Bitterroot Selway Frank Church Wilderness to support Grizzly bears. In addition in this section they talk about "5,500 square miles" yet if you read the representative from Idaho you find they are really talking about 87,671 square miles! SLIGHTLY LARGER???
End CAG Comments
The plan itself, which proposes a slightly larger experimental population area, projects that a recovered population may be between "200 and 300 grizzly bears." Such a population would increase the total number of bears in the lower 48 states by roughly 30 percent. After two centuries of retreat northward, this would be the first time that humans would actually allow the bear to reinhabit some of its historic range in North America.
Recovery will involve capture and transfer of grizzly bears from other regions. They will be taken from areas where healthy populations already exist, possibly British Columbia or northwestern Montana. Under the plan, several bears without a history of adverse interaction with people will be relocated to the area each year. All of the bears will be released in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, which includes some of the most remote land in the recovery area. The coalition hopes that the bears will begin to reproduce on their own and spread out through the region as their numbers increase.
CAG Comment
The impossibility of this plan is internationally known. The Canadian environmental groups are skeptical about the quality of the plan. The grizzly bear recovery coalition has not let that daunt them. Already they are posturing to reintroduce grizzly bears from the Northern ecosystem. The Bitterroot Coalition is crying "too may bears!" For a reason!
End CAG Comments
The Endangered Species Act is quite flexible in the ways it promotes species recovery. The bear population this plan envisions for the Bitterroot ecosystem will be an experimental, non-essential" population This designation allows a special set of management rules to be setup in the area to provide for community needs while still maintaining the central commitment to protection of the species.
Under the plan's most innovative provision, these regulations will be formulated by a citizen management Committee The major Concern raised by representatives of the timber industry during the initial recovery talks was that the threatened status of the Species would result in land use restrictions inhibiting their operations in the Bitterroot area. They were worried that federal authorities at the Interior Department would manage the project from afar and not give consideration to their needs, and the needs of the local residents who make their livelihood from the timber industry. The citizen management Committee was developed by the members of the Bitterroot Coalition to address these concerns.
CAG Comments
The Citizens Management Committee has been touted as providing local control to Idaho and Montana and ultimately to the people who must deal with the grizzly bears (if they are reintroduced) on a day to day bases. "Not so," says Senator Conrad Burns. "It won't work!" The control is really in the hands of the Secretary of the Interior.
If the decisions of the committee do not sit well with the Secretary of Interior he can rescind them or disband the committee completely.
End CAG Comments
The Citizens Committee will be made up of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior upon recommendation of the Governors of Idaho and Montana, including representatives from the states' fish and wildlife agencies, the federal departments of Interior and Agriculture, local governments, industries and organizations, and Native American tribes in the area. The members of the committee will be selected for their range of knowledge on conservation issues and diversity of interests which they represent.
The plans developed by the committee will be carried out on a day-to-day basis by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. While the plan provides some guidelines for regulations regarding the protection of bears within the Bitterroot Recovery Area and surrounding Experimental Area, the committee will be charged with decision-making on issues of bear-human/bear-livesttock conflicts. The committee members will be required to seek advice from scientific professionals as well as from state and federal agencies to better provide for the successful recovery of the grizzly.
In an unprecedented collaboration, the Bitterroot Coalition plan was submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service as a fully developed proposal for grizzly recovery. The Service released an environmental impact statement for the proposal in July 1997 which recommended the plan as the preferred alternative for grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot. The public will have until this fall to offer comments. Under the current time line, the first bears could be introduced to the area in the summer of 1998.
Public support is especially important to the success of the grizzly recovery plan because of its call for direct citizen involvement in the execution of the project. In April 1997, Responsive Management completed a survey finding that more residents of Idaho and western Montana favor the plan than oppose it. What's more, once people understand the citizen management component of the plan, support rises dramatically--when surveyed 60% of those who originally opposed recovery became more supportive if it included a citizen committee.
CAG Comments
Surveys can be made to say most anything you want. Case in point: Misinformation or asking questions in a certain way will always illicit the response you want if you are devious enough.
End CAG Comments
The plan has already garnered high profile bipartisan support. Montana Governor Marc Racicot (R) sees the value of consensus-building between loggers and conservationists -- writing in a July 1995 letter that, "the Coalition's approach represents the kind of Endangered Species Act flexibility and the local partnership concepts that the Secretary of Interior has been advocating" After the Washington Post did a story on the plan, Michael Crapo (R-ID) was so enthusiastic that he distributed copies of the article to all the members of the House Republican Task Force on the Environment, which he heads. Max Baucus (D-MT), head of the committee that oversees the Endangered Species Act, has also praised the plan. In addition, the grizzly recovery plan has received a good deal of favorable press, both on regional and national levels. Several Idaho-Montana papers have run editorials in favor of the project: Idaho's Lewiston Morning Tribune deems it "the most promising approach to resolving natural resource disputes the state has seen in decades." The Idaho Falls Post Register called it "exciting," and possibly "a new trend" for resolving environmental problems. Montana's Missoulian said the plan is "a far better approach to endangered species protection" than the route taken in wolf recovery. Articles have also appeared in both the Washington Post and the New York Times Magazine highlighting the partnership between these traditionally opposing forces.
Despite this widespread support, the plan does face its share of opponents. Though the grizzly is naturally a reclusive species and unlikely to stray from the remote recovery area without provocation, some residents understandably remain fearful that the bears will pose a threat to their communities. Others distrust the sincerity of the union between loggers and environmentalists, with criticism coming from both ends of the political spectrum. Some politicians fear that the project will produce federal regulations stymieing local economic growth Some environmental groups are concerned that the "experimental" status of the population will allow land-use interests on the citizen committee to weaken protections essential to the survival of the bears. The public comment period on the plan is sure to be characterized by impassioned debate.
CAG Comments
End CAG Comments
But it's not surprising that so ground-breaking a project should rock the boat, Tom France calls it the radical center," a stance which risks drawing criticism from both friends and enemies. But as France asserts, "it's the place where long-term solutions get constructed by finding common ground instead of nurturing old differences." By turning political paradigms around, the coalition has risen above the traditional stand-off mentality between conservationists and land-users to make real progress towards helping the threatened grizzly bear.
The grizzly bear recovery plan will return one of the most awe-inspiring species in North America to a large portion of its natural range. It will increase the grizzly bear population in the lower 48 states by nearly a third, and will help to assure its long-term survival by beginning to link isolated populations. But perhaps most importantly, it will prove that through dialogue and flexibility, traditional opponents can indeed work together to achieve victories in the protection of endangered and threatened species.
CAG Comments
IT'S ALL ABOUT POWER! It's not about grizzlies. It's about resource control. It's about people control. It's about core areas, buffer zones, corridors (or if you prefer 'large blocks of land, linkage zones and their attending buffer zones;' ) from Alaska to Texas, from California to Vermont and beyond. As The County Commisioners in one Idaho county said,
"If we don't fight the reintroduction of grizzly bears with all our might
End CAG Comments
For more information, please
contact:
Tom France, counsel, National Wildlife Federation
tel. (406) 721-6705; e-mail: france@nwf.org