October 23, 1997 ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND DENIED AN IDAHO EXPERIENCE
Clark County Commissioners
P.O. Box 205, Dubois, ID 83423
208 374-5302
October 23, 1997
Our Public Servants:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. While not directly affected by the proposal at this time, we may be affected if the grizzly bear is reintroduced and the agencies decide they need a "migration corridor" between Yellowstone and the Bitterroot Ecosystems. We wish to go on record as opposing both reintroduction of the bear and creation of a "corridor".
We recognize, first, that the preferred alternative is formed by a coalition of preservationists, timber industry representatives and organized labor. We have the greatest respect for members of the coalition who support reintroduction of grizzly bear as a way to gain local control of public land management. If we believed the coalition would receive a large area of land free of encumbrances, and could manage it in any way they deemed necessary to recover the bear and produce a sustainable supply of timber, range, and other goods and services we would be the first to support that effort. Unfortunately, the committee will have very little control.
Our experience with grizzly bear management on the Targhee National Forest gives us a unique insight into this issue. For those who have no experience with threatened or endangered species, it is hard to comprehend the length government agencies will go to protect them. Common sense is replaced by paranoia and distrust of anyone who wants to " use" the forest.
The Targhee Forest, where we live, is a good example of this. The grizzly bear was designated a threatened species in 1975. We are just now beginning to see the real impact of that designation. In 1992 Intermountain Forest Industry's mill in St. Anthony closed because it could no longer acquire adequate supplies of timber to sustain it. Part of the reason for its closure was increasing restrictions to protect the grizzly bear. Although the mill was located in St. Anthony, we felt the effect in Clark County through the loss of jobs and reduced 25 Percent Receipts Act funds.
In the last two years, the Access Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee developed special criteria for road density and core areas. The road density criteria permit no open roads in core areas and only .6 mile of road per square mile of land outside core areas. Absolutely no motorized use or timber harvest is allowed inside the core areas for the next 10 years. These, and other restrictions, were developed in secret by federal agencies and their subcommittees. There was no public input. The Targhee Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) then incorporated these requirements into the Targhee Forest Plan Revision (also without public input) and the USFWS required the restrictions be included in the Revision under terms and conditions of their biological opinion (again without public input). Only then was the plan made public, and of course, the decision was set in stone by then.
The point being the same thing will likely happen to a citizen's committee in central Idaho. Decisions will be made and requirements will be included in Forest plans without their knowledge. By the time committee finds out, the requirements will be in place. Those requirements will drastically reduce the decisions the committee can make. As forest plans are revised, that decision space will shrink even further.
The result will be that when the committee goes to make a decision, there will to be little to decide. The decision will be: which road to close, not if they should be closed. Or which cattle allotments to close, not if they should be closed. By the time committee members discover this, the bear will be designated an experimental population and it will be too late to go back.
As agency decisions in the Forest Plans are enforced (which the citizen committee will have no control over) roads will be closed; large segments of the Forest placed off-limits to summer OHV use; the suitable timber base will be reduced; cattle allotments will be closed; etc. The bottom line will be more of the forest open to bears, and less open to humans.
A second reason we are opposed to reintroduction is that it will become an excuse for environmentalists to fight for a "migration corridor" between central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. What enviros and public land managers are not telling the public is that restrictions will have to be as strict within the corridor as for their primary habitat Bears will not use the corridor as a "racetrack" between the two areas. Corridors only work if bears occupy them and slowly migrate toward each other. That means mortality requirements, road densities, and core areas will have to apply in the corridor just as they do in the recovery area. And that means severe restrictions on use in the Centennial Mountains, Bitterroot Mountains, and Beaverhead Mountains; our back yard. More room for the bear, less for humans.
The third reason we are opposed to reintroduction is that once the bear becomes established, they will take precedence over all other uses. Common sense approaches to management and promises to delist will vanish.
The Yellowstone region is again a good example of this. The grizzly bear has met every recovery criteria for over a year now, and could be delisted. As soon as environmental groups became aware of this they immediately went to court to request another criteria be established to recover the bear. Apparently the USFWS was dumbstruck and was unable to think of one single reason why another criteria should not be established. As a result the USFWS and environmental groups met in secret and decided a new criteria was necessary, and the judge agreed. So recovery is now on hold until a new habitat criteria is developed. In the meantime, everything is on hold and resource development and motorized users are the losers.
We are writing to say that we are opposed to reintroduction of the grizzly bear in central Idaho. As elected officials we must fight the reintroduction with every fiber of our being. Once the bear is reintroduced as an experimental species, it will be too late to go back.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the reintroduction proposal. Nothing personal, but we hope it fails.
Clark County Commissioners
Charles R. Vadnais, Chairman
Charles E Wilson, Commissioner
Gregory Shenton,Commissioner
Copies: County Commissioners, Idaho County, Idaho
County Commissioners, Valley County, Idaho
County Commissioners, Fremont County, Idaho
County Commissioners, Lemhi County, Idaho
County Commissioners, Beaverhead County, Montana
County Commissioners, Ravalli County, Montana
Idaho Representative Lenore Barrett, Challis, Idaho
Idaho Senator Stan Hawkins, Ucon, Idaho
Governor Phil Batt, Idaho
Governor Marc Racicot, Montana
RETURN