May 5, 2009 in City, Idaho, Region

Grizzly protection proposed

Plan would limit public’s access

• Print
• Email
• Share

Protecting grizzly bears across a 4,560-square-mile swath of the Selkirk and Cabinet mountains will require closing hundreds of miles of backcountry roads used by hunters and huckleberry pickers, the Forest Service says.

Grizzlies need secure areas to avoid contact with people, according to a new agency report. Despite 2-inch claws and a fierce reputation – the grizzly’s Latin name is Ursus arctos horribilis, or “horrible northern bear” – bears are typically the losers during encounters with humans.

Since 1982, people have killed 87 grizzlies in two grizzly bear recovery zones in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak mountains of northeastern Washington, Idaho and Western Montana.

Seventy percent of the human-caused deaths occurred near roads. Poaching and mistaking a grizzly for a black bear were two frequent reasons grizzlies were shot and killed on Forest Service lands. Self-defense by hunters was also a factor, particularly during elk season.

“Grizzly bears kill relatively few people, yet every year, we hear about grizzly deaths in the Northern Rockies,” said Mike Petersen, executive director of the Spokane-based Lands Council. “These bear mortalities are taking place near roads.”

Over the past decade, environmental groups brought a series of lawsuits against the Forest Service, arguing that the agency needed to do more to keep people and bears apart by restricting motorized access to prime habitat areas. The litigation triggered forest plan revisions in the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai and Lolo national forests.

The plan is out in draft form. Public comments will be accepted through June 22.

Closing roads to protect habitat is controversial, particularly when it halts people’s ability to drive or ride an ATV to well-established huckleberry picking sites or hunting areas, said Karl Dekome, the Forest Service’s team leader. An earlier draft attracted more than 300 public comments.

“People have their favorite places out there that they like to use,” he said. “When you’re talking about closing that off, it can become emotional.”

The Forest Service reviewed two alternatives. Grizzlies would benefit most from barricading up to 1,800 miles of Forest Service roads; erecting gates on up to another 490 miles of roads; and eliminating motorized use on 57 miles of trails, according to the agency.

Forest Service officials, however, prefer a less restrictive plan that gates or barricades about 325 miles of road, while reopening other roads for motorized travel. About 30 miles of trail would close to motorized use. “It tries to strike a balance, providing sufficient habitat recovery for grizzly bears, but recognizing there are other issues and needs,” Dekome said.

Recreational activities would be hard-hit under the more restrictive plan, he said. Driving access to more than 22 developed recreation sites would be eliminated. The day-use area at Roman Nose, a 7,221-foot peak in Boundary County, is on the list. So are six campgrounds, three boat ramps and three picnic areas in the Kootenai National Forest.

Some hiking trails would effectively double in length. Snowmobile trails would be affected, because trail maintenance would be restricted during the summer months, Dekome said.

The ability to drive to the Lunch Peak lookout rental near Sandpoint is curtailed under both alternatives. But recreational impacts are much less severe in the Forest Service’s preferred plan, Dekome said.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, one of the groups that sued the Forest Service, questions whether the agency’s preferred alternative is scientifically sound. Opening roads for timber sales would be allowed, said Liz Sedler, who works for the alliance in Sandpoint. She also said the grizzlies need bigger, undisturbed areas than the preferred alternative creates.

Grizzly bears are among the nation’s rarest mammals. Females don’t have cubs until age 6 or so. They produce young every other year. In 2006, about 46 grizzlies were believed to roam the Selkirk recovery zone, with another 40 in the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone.

“These are small populations,” Sedler said. “That’s one reason it’s important to improve these standards so they actually help bears.”

Seven comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Ninch on May 05 at 7:40 a.m.

  Close these roads to ALL motor vehicles. Americans have gotten very lazy and too often prefer to plant their big butts on an ATV instead of hiking… often interfering with those who do choose to go on foot (or horse) or who backcountry ski in the winter. Also, it is only in contemporary times that people think they should be able to drive directly to their “recreational” destination. BTW: Lots of fires caused by vehicles themselves and the clueless people they carry.

  Additionally, huckleberries (as well as other plants like mushrooms, etc.) have become huge money-making commercial businesses and “favorite” spots now look like clear cuts after greedy “entrepreneurs” visit. They strip everything, e.g. cutting huckleberry plant branches or using stupid machines because they are too lazy to actually “pick” the berries. Nothing left for families who search for indigenous foods as part of their outdoor recreation. And nothing left for bears who also eat huckleberries.

  BTW: Anyone who cannot tell the difference between black bears and grizzlies, should not be allowed to hunt. Anyone who is “petrified” by bears should stay home. And elk hunters should be made to leave their kill for the bear, rather than be given carte blanche approval for “self-defense.”

  P.S. As a backcountry hiker I have had way too many bad experiences with lazy stupid humans, and only good memorable experiences with my very few encounters with bears. In fact it has been only humans who have threatened me or put my life in danger (with motor vehicles). Bears have tended to avoid my presence, except the one time that a bear and I were at opposite ends of a very large huckleberry patch.

• 

  biker on May 05 at 8:37 a.m.

  Ninch, You should have been born a bear. That way you would not have to deal with us pesky humans, and per capita, the recipient of one of the largest stimulus plans aimed at making you technically a huge land baron.

  Having said that, although I realize any contact between the grizzly and humans is unpredictable at best, closing off even more roads in the Cabinets and Selkirks is ridiculous to the point it is almost impossible for me, an avid scrambler and hiker in the Cabinets to reasonably access these incredible lands. In the Selkirks, it is essentially a backhanded attempt to turn it into a Protected or Wilderness status.

  Too many roads have been closed and abandoned already…any further closures would essentially turn a day hike into a multi-day event, essentially shutting the forest off to most human participants. Perhaps that is the ultimate goal anyway. This call to action is overblown and likely spurred by organizations who are willing to promote animal habitat at all costs. This by no means adheres to the principal of “The Better Good”.

  I agree access on some roads and especially trails should be non-ATV restricted. But get real, what we lose we will never get back.

• 

  Ninch on May 05 at 8:58 a.m.

  Barb… Why did you take my comment so personally? And to respond by personalizing with a sarcastic comment against me leads me to believe that the rest of your post about being an “avid scrambler and hiker” is not really true. Yes, your response equates to your belonging to the “lazy” group.

  And for being an “avid scrambler and hiker”, why are you so attached to motorized transportation in the wilderness? There are THOUSANDS of places to scramble and hike that have vehicle access. To reach the places without vehicle access, the rest of us “hike in.” (Sounds like an archaic term these days.) Most importantly, for those of us who also do more than “day” trips, it would be nice to be backcountry camping without the intrusion of irritating and polluting fuel-powered vehicles.

  FYI: Your need for roads is also unrealistic. Roads require maintenance, which far exceeds anything spent on grizzly bears.

  BTW: “The Better Good” is keeping ecological systems whole, which includes animal habitat. You are so anthropocentric that it is scary. Think about this,,, for long term survival, humans need the planet to work for all, but the planet can do very well without humans. Similar to your attitude about doing without grizzlies.

  I recommend you get out of your vehicle, and do some real hiking.

• 

  wyoboy on May 05 at 11:46 a.m.

  Keep in mind that these environmental organizations are a business that is self promoting in order to stay in existence.

  They look for issues that are emotional to the public in order to gain membership and the more important membership fees so they continue to have jobs.

  One of their favorite targets is the Forest Service. This organization has very little push back in part because many of the staff members belong to the same organizations bringing suite.

  For the Forest Service closing off an area is easy and the least expensive option. If the public does not respond, they close an area off.

  A common misconception of the public is that these federal agencies can create wilderness. This is wrong, only Congress has the power to do this legally. The Executive branch of the federal government does have the power to create National Parks, Recreation Areas and Monuments. Usually done with the consent of the congressional delegation in the state where the area is located.
  Grand Teton Nation Park is a classic example where a park was created without this approval.

  File you comments with the Forest Service office. Do not send in form letters. These get ignored.

• 

  thetruth on May 13 at 11:18 p.m.

  If the truth were known Forest Service biologists would testify that grizzly bears and caribou primary habitats are in Canada, not the United States. A little known fact that should cause outrage is that the forest service road closures apply also to the U.S. Border Patrol who will no longer be able to monitor the border in these areas. This will cause serious border security issues. You can bet smugglers of drugs, people and weapons of mass destruction will not abide by forest service mandates. Recent helicopter incursions that resulted in marijuana drug seizures in eastern Washington and northern Idaho are testament to the ongoing unlawful activities regularly occurring over and through our national forests. Forest Service road closures simply weaken our first line defense against drug smugglers and terrorists while enhancing the habitat a a few wandering bear and caribou. These policies willl also kill the local economies in both areas.

• 

  BearGrass on August 04 at 8:13 a.m.

  The “truth”

  I highly dount many terrorists are moving back and forth between the US and Canada in the Selkirks etc.
  Why are people growing pot in roadless areas?
  Because it’s profitable
  Why is ti porfitable?
  Because it’s illegal. Who contributes vast amounts of money to keep even industrialized hemp illegal?
  The timber and oil companies particuarlly Plum Creek on the hemp issue. We can create in a cheaper manner, better products from hemp rather than timber and plastics.
  William R. Hurst ran a campaign back in the 1930’s to outlaw hemp and pot and since then it’s been illegal.
  I have heard this lame argument beofre trying to blame pot farms on protected land.
  It is the timber industry and oil companies and countless others who are to blame for these issues not enviros who have become the scapegoat for everything wrong on public lands.

  Thank you Ninch I blog about this issue often and you have already expressed my views and feelings.