According to information I have been able to glean from your printed material and related subject matter, the United States Fish and Wildlife agency grizzly bear recovery plan would lock up 32 million acres of the Western United States for this species which is in no danger of extinction. There are no studies I can document based on creditable scientific proof that this grizzly bear is endangered or threatened.

The only thing your studies have established is that someone, possibly a Fish and Wildlife biologist, decided that there ought to be more grizzly bears in the West. I doubt a good Fish and Wildlife biologist did make this decision, they would know better. The whoever determined the need to plant grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot parts of Idaho and Montana meant to establish bear corridors connecting together and in order to do that had to fill the hole that would allow corridors to be contiguous and restricted gradually and totally from human beings and their activities including their private properties

At the June 17, 1997, so-called public meeting the ground rules were laid It was without any public input by a public except the few environmental groups chosen to lead the process of suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency in order to force them to begin the process of creating the 32 million acres of protected recovery zone in the six regions of the West that would be connected by migratory corridors. All this would be allowed to be implemented rules and regulations not endorsed by congress since they have not ratified the UN convention on Biodiversity signed by President Clinton and is the mother of invention of the biological foundation for a contrived threatened species designation.

We, as a people of the Western United States, at least a large majority, object to these plans by this administration and the Secretary of Interior to destroy the lives and livelihoods they are willing to destroy by these plans that are not based on creditable science.

The projected acceptable human mortality rate is an abomination that cannot be tolerated nor excused as humanitarian from an administration that is willing to throw stones at many other countries of this world for their unacceptable humanitarian practices Those who wrote this factor into the studies and plans will have no risk to their families as the acceptable numbers of human mortality. We who will be risking our families in no way countenance any human mortality rate. How hypocritical can this Secretary of Interior be -- and the people of the United States tolerate it. We will not submit nor tolerate it in Idaho. We have said so clearly.

Our governor, our congressional delegation, our Idaho legislature, our Fish and Game Commission, our Fish and Game department, our county commissioners, our sportsmen's groups, our outdoor recreation groups, our cattleman, wool growers, mining and timber industries, our Farm bureau, all of us representing the citizens of this state have told you unequivocally no. We do not accept the planting of more grizzly bears into Idaho, nor do we abide any plans other than Alternative 3 being pushed on other states over their objections.

We do not accept any citizens advisory group alternative subject to veto, replacement or coercion from the Secretary of Interior of the United States Government, that government is us. We would ask the president of the United States to replace him with someone who will serve the people.

We do not accept any alternative as summarized in the executive summary. Alternative 3 comes closest to acceptance by any of us but there are assumptions made in the statements about Alternative 3 that need to be challenged. I will do that in writing.

The arrogance of the assumption that state legislation would be passed to remove grizzly bears from protection of state law is a bit presumptuous. We will decide that in Idaho. Agencies and the public would be allowed to kill grizzly bears at any time without restriction is a ridiculous assumption. We have not done so in the past before your ESA came along. We challenge your Tables S-2 and S-3 and the data used to compute these are scientifically questionable. The expected actions and effects are mostly acceptable to us but we most especially challenge that no measurable benefits would result from the alternative. Maybe you need to measure our lives and economy as something of worth

We know that there is no threat of extinction of the grizzly bear. They are free to propagate in Alaska, Canada, and national parks in the continental Untied States. They are not harassed there by business nor people

If this part of Idaho were native to and conducive to the propagation of these animals, they would already be there. They do not stay in the perimeters of Yellowstone Park, we know that from experience If they wanted to go into our wilderness, there is nothing to stop them.

We object strenuously to the value your plans place on this animal over the values of human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you..