October 8, 1997 One thing is quite clear: the, grizzly bear is neither endangered nor is it a threatened species.
Public Hearing
Salmon, ID
October 8, 1997
Comments from: Norman E. Miller, North Fork, ID
My name is Norman Miller. I live eight miles north of North Fork, and about a quarter mile east of Highway 93. I am a chemist, currently retired, after 35 years of professional work in experimental chemical research.
My comments are based upon a modest effort to read all the information available in this county regarding the alleged grizzly bear recovery effort: namely, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of June 6, 1997, found in the Salmon Library, and a score of documents requested under The Freedom of Information Act by the County Commissioners from the Bear Recovery Office at the University of Montana.
One thing is quite clear: the, grizzly bear is neither endangerednor is it a threatened species. The populations are so large in Canada and Alaska that they need to be harvested. They become technically a "threatened species" by appending a habitat descriptor, like "in the lower 48 States." It is, and probably ever will be, threatened in parts of its history- cal habitat. Unless some meaningful limit is found for what could be done, we will be left with the unending listing of this bear as threatened. We should all hope that will not be.
If a choice must be made from the four alternatives presented in the DEIS, it most certainly is alternative 2. It makes the best current scientific and common sense to me.
Alternative I appears to be an artful dodge to get public support from people in the region most affected by the introduction of the grizzly bear into the proposed ecosystem. It is artful because its very title (of "nonessential") contradicts what bear ecologists believe, namely that bear recovery requires the maximization of bear population on available (meaning, presumably, on all available) habitat. The appearance of citizen participation in the management process is cosmetic at best, and at worst a cruel hoax. The Secretary of the Interior never relinquishes control of the recovery effort. Fourteen of the 15 members of the Citizens Management Committee are the appointments of this Secretary (albeit, 12 of them are from recommendations of the governors of Idaho and Montana). One must presume that the Secretary would wait until recommendations come forward which are to the Secretary's liking. That could result in a Committee that is a near clone of the Secretary. Moreover, at the Secretary's discretion alone, the CMC may be dissolved if its decisions do not comport to those of the Secretary. There is no mechanism, apparent to me, for the "reintroduction" of the committee in such an event. The ability summarily to dismiss a governance body reminds me of what happened in colonial Virginia prior to the Revolutionary War. The colonial Governor in a hissy fit did just that with the House of Burgesses.
Most importantly, the science embedded in the word "experimental" requires that there be an objective as well as the opportunity to see if the premise of the experiment could be false, else it is not science. The premise of the experiment is the development of an isolated population of bears not in contact with those of other ecosystems. This experiment is already in progress in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and the main objective of a healthy continuing population has not yet been demonstrated. There is concern because the gene pool may be too small for the good of the bear. Prudence requires a substantial completion of one experiment; before starting an identical one or it becomes possible to make two mistakes instead of but one. And these are truly costly experiments. Finally, the falsification criteria given in the alternative require so little accomplishment of recovery that it is virtually impossible for the experiment to fail. That is hardly science!
Alternative 2 essentially says the legal status that the bear achieves from its listing as threatened in the lower 48 States will be respected in central Idaho. Of course it will! We are people who have inherited "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." We intend to keep our inheritance intact. With this alternative there would be time to allow the maturing of some of the other experiments now being conducted by federal agencies in the area designated as Experimental in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. If these prove successful there would be more food available for the bear should it arrive. As it now stands, what is proposed is the imposed and costly introduction of a bear with a bad reputation for having a short fuse particularly when it is hungry. It is so unpredictable and dangerously armed when its fuse is lighted that it has caused biologists to call it "horribilis." This introduction is being imposed upon a forest area admittedly sick from past practices and management decisions. The area is desperately short of whitebark pine cones, salmon, and steelhead fish that are great bear food, which if present could lower potential adverse contact with people. Is not a full bear usually a happy bear? Or, if mommy bear am t happy, ain't nobody happy. That applies here to papa bear, too.
Alternative 3 seems to require that state law be in conflict with federal law. Ordinarily, in such cases, unless the Supreme Court finds otherwise, the conflict is resolved in favor of the federal law.
Alternative 4 obviously contradicts the title of alternative 1. It has the appearance of a heavy-handed waving of the red flag of the Endangered Species Act. At best its wording is inflammatory and poor public relations.
This is a 2nd testimony from the same man with a little different twist:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement. My name is Norman Miller. I live eight miles north of North Fork, about a quarter of a mile east of Highway 93.
I am a chemist, currently retired after 35 years of professional work in experimental chemical research. My comments are based on a modest effort to read all the information available in this county regarding the alleged grizzly bear recovery effort: Namely, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of June 6, 1997, found in the Salmon library and a score of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act by the county commissioners from the bear recovery office at the University of Montana. One thing is quite clear: The grizzly bear is neither endangered nor is it a threatened species. The populations are so large in Canada and Alaska that they need to be harvested.
They become technically a threatened species by appending a habitat descriptor, like in the lower 48 states. It is and probably ever will be threatened in parts of its historical habitat. Unless some meaningful limit is found for what could be done, we will be left with the unending listing of this bear as threatened. We should all hope that will not be.
If a choice must be made from the four alternatives presented in the Environmental Impact Statement it most certainly is Alternative No. 2. It makes the best current scientific and common sense to me.
Alternative 1 appears to be an artful dodge to get public support from people in the region most affected by the introduction of the grizzly bear in the proposed ecosystem. It is artful because of its very title: Nonessential contradicts what bear ecologists believe, namely that bear recovery requires the maximization of bear population on available, which means, presumably, all available habitat. The appearance of citizen participation in the management process is cosmetic at best, and at worst a cruel hoax. The Secretary of the Interior never relinquishes control of the recovery effort.
Fourteen of the 15 members of the citizens management committee are the appointments of this secretary, albeit 12 of them are from recommendations of the governors of Idaho and Montana. One must presume that the secretary would wait until recommendations come forward which are Lo the secretary's liking. That could result in a committee that is a near clone of the secretary.
Moreover, at the secretary's discretion alone this committee may be dissolved if its decisions do not comport to those of the secretary. There is no mechanism apparent to me for the reintroduction of the committee in such an event. The ability summarily to dismiss a governance body reminds me of what happened in colonial Virginia prior to the Revolutionary War. The colonial governor in a hissy fit did just that with the house of burgesses.
Most importantly, the science embedded in the word "experimental" requires that there be an objective as well as the opportunity to see if the premise of the experiment could be false, else it is not science. The premise of the experiment is the development of an isolated population of bears not in contact with those of other ecosystems. This experiment is already in progress in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and the main objective of a healthy continuing population has not yet been demonstrated.
There is concern because the gene pool may be too small for the good of the bear. Prudence requires a substantial completion of one experiment before starting an identical one or it becomes possible to make two mistakes instead of but one. And these are truly costly experiments. Finally, the falsification criteria given in the alternative requires so little accomplishment of recovery that it is virtually impossible for the experiment to fail. That is not science.
Alternative 2 essentially says the legal status that the bear achieves from its listing as threatened in the lower 48 states will be respected in Central Idaho. Of course it will. We are people who have inherited a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We intend to keep our inheritance. With this alternative there would be time to allow the maturing of some of the other experiments now being conducted by federal agencies in the area designated. If these prove successful, there would be more food available for the bear should it arrive. As it now stands, what is proposed is the imposed and costly introduction of a bear with a bad reputation for having a short fuse, particularly when it is hungry.
It is so unpredictable and dangerously armed when its fuse is lighted that it has caused biologists to call it horribilis. The area is desperately short of whitebark pine cones salmon, and steelhead fish which are great bear food, which if they were present could lower potential adverse contact with people. Is not a full bear usually a happy bear? Or if mommy bear ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. And that applies here to pappy bear, too.
RETURN