My name is LaVern (Bud) Richard, 307 North 4th Street, Hamilton, MT 59840-2411, (406) 363-5212, lavernr@bitterroot.com and this is my comment on the FEIS. I have hotlinked my comment to http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly a database maintained by Concerned About Grizzlies, CAG, a grassroots orgainzation and made part of this response by reference.
The DEIS or the FEIS do not and can not answer questions PERTINENT TO THE REINTRODUCTION OF GRIZZLY BEARS.
There has been so many delays in the construction of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and subsequent Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) for the purpose of attempting to meet the objections of the people in Idaho and Montana to the reintroduction of grizzly bears;
IT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT ALLOW MORE THAN 30 DAYS FOR THE CITIZENS TO RESPOND.
It appears that a decision has been made by the Clinton/Gore administration, based upon attitudes held by the federal agencies that have been captured by environmental groups like Friends of the Bitterroot, The National Wildlife Federation, Serria Club, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, The Audubon Society, to name a few of the hundreds of such environmental organizations, to reintroduce grizzly bears to the SBE whether there is really a quality environment rather than a "deemed quality environment."
The people that will be heavily impacted by the grizzly bear have never been included, and in spite of noises about 'citizens' committees',will never really be included because if their decision doesn't sit well with the Department of Interior, it can ignore their suggestions or disband the committee completely.
There is solid evidence that grizzly bears should not be put into an environment that was destroyed, as far as the grizzly bear is concerned, when dams stopped the Chinook salmon from coming to the upper reaches of the Columbia Basin to spawn. THAT IS WHY THE LAST GRIZZLY BEAR WAS KILLED IN THE BITTERROOT IN 1932. While there is evidence that grizzly bears have come through the SBE, they have chosen not to set up housekeeping even while grizzly bears that migrated into the Sweetwater hills set up housekeeping immediately BECAUSE THERE WAS A SOURCE OF FOOD.
Whitebark pine, that is such a critical part of the grizzly bears' diet, is actually on the decline and there is no reason to assume it will recover in the foreseeable future. Global warming has not been considered and its effect on the target environment?
Due consideration has not been given to the fact that the recovery area being considered is notorious for its lack of minerals because the most of it is composed of the Idaho Batholith.
The FEIS does not address the problems that exist in the reintroduction of grizzly bears, and cannot because the environment simply does not exist. Afterall if the environment is as good as reported the GRIZZLY BEARS WOULD BE THERE ALREADY.
In, short returning grizzly bears to the BSE is an impossible dream.
March 13, 2000 Ravalli Republic article by Buddy Smith: Grizzly reintroduction one step closer I have made hotlinks to points in this news release that clearly demonstrate that grizzly bears should not be reintroduced into the SBE.
GRIZZLIES AND THE BITTERROOT
1932 Last verified grizzly death
1946 Track reported near the Lochsa.
1975 Grizzly listed as threatened.
1982 FWS plan calls for evaluation of Bitterroot as potential recovery area.
1985 Bitterroot evaluation started.
1990 Evaluation completed - no bear population found but habitat deemed suitable.
1991 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee endorsed Bitterroot as recovery area.
1992 Government agencies drafted Bitterroot recovery chapter for inclusion in grizzly recovery plan.
1994 IGBC approved Bitterroot chapter; FWS started environmental review.
1997 Draft Environmental Impact Statement released.
2000 Final Environmental Impact Statement released.
Public comment on the final environmental impact statement should be sent to 'Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall-Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812 or electronically mailed to FW6_Bitterroot@fws.gov by April 24, 2000.
The document also is available for viewing and downloading at www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly.
An experimental population of grizzly bears could be introduced deep in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness begriming in 2001 under a final environmental impact statement that also puts private land off limits to the threatened species. [Grizzly bears can tell the difference???]
From six alternatives, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials chose as the preferred the release of one to five bears a year, until the bears number 25.
Officials hope they will flourish in the wilderness, where they would be fitted with radio collars and monitored for years to determine their location.
Ultimately officials hope for a population of 280 bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem over a minimum of a 50 year period.
The mountains of western Montana and Idaho may be the last best place for grizzly bears in the lower 48, said Chris Servheen, Interagency Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator in Missoula.
But the Bitterroot Valley would be off limits. [Again: Grizzly bears can tell the difference???]
"I think that we made changes to the document to reflect the comments and concerns raised by the public," Servheen said. "The most important one to the Bitterroot is that the Bitterroot Valley is an exclusion area.
"We don't want any grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Valley; we're calling it a zero-tolerance zone." [Again: Grizzly bears can tell the difference???]
This most recent step in the decision making process launches a final comment period from March 24 to April 24, with a record of decision expected as early as August.
Grizzlies would be monitored by a 15 member citizens' management committee. Its members would be chosen by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the governors of Montana and Idaho.
The committee would forward its recommendations on grizzly management to federal officials and the Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho.
Removing and relocating bears that leave public lands and wander onto private property would be a given and would not need committee recommendation.
"Every time a grizzly bear walks on private land, we can't convene the citizens' management committee to talk about it," he said.[As I understand it Chris Servheen, nor any other citizen of the United States, can declare the Endangered Species Act nul and void! You will be in deep trouble with the Federal government if, for example, you kill a grizzly bear, trap it or whatever as a private citizen]
Grizzlies also wouldn't have to cross paths with humans to prompt their removal and relocation.
Additionally, bears that continue to wander onto private land could be destroyed under the proposal, Servheen said.
The alternative released Thursday is similar to the version in the draft - with exceptions. For one, two scientists will join the citizens' management committee as consultants, said Laird Robinson with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Missoula.
"A lot of the public expressed major concern that science ought to be represented very strongly on the committee," Robinson said.
The final version also calls for a year of outreach to backcountry users in order to teach them about living and traveling in bear country. It also requires a year of "sanitation ," before releasing bears.
Sanitation means replacing traditional campground dumpsters with those that are bear proof.
Recovering the bear with non-essential, experimental status gives the agency and locals more flexibility in managing grizzlies, Servheen said. It also does not give full protection of the Endangered Species Act, which is where some grizzly advocates differ on how bears should be managed.
Officials would release both male and female sub-adult bears from three possible sources: Canada, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem or the Yellowstone Ecosystem, where habitat is similar to the Bitterroot ecosystem.
Grizzlies are omnivorous, feeding on berries, whitebark pine nuts, animals, bulbs, roots, grasses, and insects.
"We're not going to take prairie bears or bears from Augusta or Choteau and put them there," he said.
They must also be bears without a troubled past, Servheen said.
Grizzlies with a history of inter-action or conflict with humans would not be allowed in the Selway-Bitterroot.
The final EIS comes nearly two years after officials released a draft plan for grizzly reintroduction. It also comes after numerous delays.
A record of decision on grizzly reintroduction could reach the regional director's Denver desk as early as August. Or that decision could come from higher up, Robinson said.
Grizzlies would also have to wait for Congress to fund the money to introduce them in the 2001 Department of Interior spending bill. They're expected to cost $1.9 million over five years, officials said.
Servheen made it clear that while grizzlies could be moved or even destroyed, they are federally protected from human harm.
"If you kill a grizzly bear illegally in the Bitterroot, you are subject to investigation and fines under the Endangered Species Act," he said.
The Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church-River of No Return wildness areas may also be the last chance for bears south of the Canadian border, he said.
Historically, the bear was wide-spread there; the last verified grizzly death was 1932; back country expert Bud Moore reported tracks near the Lochsa in 1946.
With more than 5,785 square miles, it's an area roughly larger than, "Connecticut, Rhode Island and then some," Servheen said.
"That area is the largest block of contiguous wilderness that exists in the Rocky Mountains, so it has the greatest potential for the restoration of grizzly bears."
Not everyone is convinced that bringing the bear to the area is such a good idea, including Ravalli County Commissioner Smut Warren.
"I'm really upset over it," he said. "Next thing they'll start shutting areas down to loggers, outfitters. They won't be able to go in there."
The cost of transplanting bears also bothers Warren, who said that money could be better spent for other programs.
He also believes the meetings he and other commissioners and local groups attended in Idaho were pointless.
"We wasted our time because they knew it was a done deal," Warren said.
Merle Lloyd of Concerned About Grizzlies, a group which has long opposed grizzly reintroduction, said his group would be meeting to review the FEIS before issuing a statement.
Based on comments received during the draft stage, individuals and organizations closet to the recovery area have been less supportive of grizzlies, Robinson said.
"The farther you get from the recovery area, I would say the more support there is for grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot," Robinson said. [This is the only way the IGBRC could gain support for the reintroduction of grizzly bears and this was done in a deceptive way.]
Grizzly reintroduction would be a momentous first. Officials have augmented populations before, but never before have they started over in an area void of grizzly bears.
Nor have they ever placed so much responsibility on a committee. It's the first time officials would give a committee management of an endangered species.
Meantime, Servheen said agency officials have done "exhaustive work" looking at the potential for food and habitat in the Bitterroot ecosystem. It's a habitat that can support the great bears, he said.[Then, why did grizzly bears die out, they didn't in the Bob Marshal or the YE]
"I've very confident this is the way to go," Servheen said.
Chris Servheen and Senators and Representatives, a short examination of the database will, I am sure, lead you to the conclusion that grizzly bears should not be reintroduced into the SBE and that some other way should be found to follow the dream of Y2Y, complete with core areas, corridors and buffer zones..
LaVern (Bud) Richard