Doug's Blog

I prefer to stumble through the woods slowly but others favor jogging and getting there fast. On a proposed northern route through the Yaak Valley of northwest Montana, a nationally-targeted destination would send all manners of hikers--ethical, experienced, and inexperienced--into one place grizzly recovery cannot afford a single mistake, a single messy campsite.

Hiking routes for humans range from game trails to the so-called high-volume industrial recreation super trails like the much touted and travelled Appalachian, Continental Divide and Pacific Crest hiking super highways, which are collectively called the “triple crown of long distance hiking.” They all have their place and uses. What may be practical for one popular region might be an abomination in a more remote area.

I’ve bushwhacked all my life, though as a writer, I can see the attractiveness of bagging one of those triple crowns: it’s a ready-to-go memoir with the mileage signs delineating the book’s structure. You could do it for a speed record or have mid-life crises along the way—making for a solid read.

The faint trials I bushwhack are less suitable for linear story telling and more a metaphor for tripping and exploring your way into the unknown, maybe during periods of seeking in your own life. All kinds of backcountry travel are appropriate at different stages of your life’s journey.

I remember when I first told my friend Rick Graetz, the fine photographer and publisher, about Rick Bass’ protectiveness of the Yaak’S roadless areas and its grizzlies. Graetz said he didn’t get it: The Yaak was claustrophobic, green, brushy, full of ugly mosquitoes with no views of distant peaks or snowfields. It’s not like a high ridge in Glacier or a vast meadow complex in Yellowstone crawling with wildlife.

Now the Pacific Northwest Trail Association (PNTA), along with USFS acquiescence, has proposed a nearly straight line route from Glacier Park west through critical habitat for the isolated Yaak grizzly population of perhaps as few as 19 bears with 2-3 females of breeding age. I happen to like grizzly bears and eventually cramming 4000 or more hikers per year through this tiny corridor will destroy the Yaak grizzly population; encounters along the trail are inevitable and almost always settled with the bear losing her life.

Also, the PNTA favors “going high,” for the views of which the Yaak Valley does not have. Why would a hiker on a 1200-mile journey seek to actively avoid the lowest elevation in the state, and the incredibly scenic Kootenai river, largest tributary to the Columbia, with its side waterfalls and ghost towns? My old friend, the late Chuck Jonkel, studied this problem because 28 miles of the proposed Yaak trail went through critical grizzly habitat. Chuck said a better, safer, more scenic route lay to the south, linking lookout towers by ridge tops with great views all along the trail.

People and grizzlies are incompatible because humans are ignorant of grizzly behavior; a charging mother grizzly is not necessarily a dangerous situation; I’ve been charged by sows almost two dozens times and merely stood my ground inoffensively. No bear has touched me. * Recently a Wyoming wildlife warden shot a killed a mother grizzly with three now-abandoned cubs. Fish and Wildlife officials along with the sheriff applauded the warden. As long as these false and misinformed views prevail, the Yaak grizzlies are doomed by this massive influx of hikers, many of whom will be armed.

Promoters of the high-speed trail cite Glacier National Park as a place where humans and grizzlies mostly get along. I filmed bears and worked as a lookout in Glacier for over a decade and one of the reasons people don’t run into bears all the time is because popular hiking trails often have an adjacent drainage that is without a trail. The grizzlies can get away. Like the North Fork of the Flathead or Many Glacier—there’s not a trail up every creek. The Yaak Valley trail will constitute much more of a defile inviting animal tragedy. It should be noted also that Glacier is a nationa park, with a huge protected land mass; the Yaak is not a park, or at least not yet.

Don’t build a high-volume super-hiking trail in the Yaak.

Write the Kootenai National Forest or the federal advisory committee.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Doug Peacock
Montana

Two contrasting news stories about bears in the West were published on April 2, 2017. The first is a credible six-year scientific study of black bears by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The second is a report from the Yellowstone Ecosystem subcommittee meeting of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team in Jackson, Wyoming, featuring the head scientist spouting familiar political bullshit about too many grizzlies ever expanding their Yellowstone range.

The Colorado study documents rising temperatures, fewer days spent in the den, increased human conflicts, and dramatically decreasing female black bear populations in southwestern Colorado. Rising conflicts with bears eating human garbage does not mean the bear population is rising. Garbage, they conclude, is not addicting; bears go back to natural food when it is available. The key to bear populations is the carrying capacity: how much food is there, which is directly related to soil moisture and plant production that is, in turn, directly related to climate change and (by correlation) to drought and rising temperatures in the American West.

On the other hand, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team in Yellowstone doesn’t believe climate change matters, writing in the Federal Register: “Therefore, we (The Fish and Wildlife Service) conclude that the effects of climate change do not constitute a threat to (the Yellowstone grizzly bear population) now, not are they anticipated to in the future.” Frank van Manen, head scientist of Study Team, says the grizzlies are expanding their range by 11 percent every couple years. Why? He says it’s because there are too many bears: “We are packing more sardines in the sardine can.” Van Manen thinks they are overflowing from the can into new territory where conflicts with livestock abound, and that today we are seeing the largest Yellowstone grizzly bear population size since listed as a threatened species in 1975.

This is bullshit. Climate change has already decimated key Yellowstone grizzly foods, especially whitebark pine nuts (which is now functionally extinct as a food source for bears), and has lowered the carrying capacity of the habitat through drought and rising temperatures (for a scientific discussion, click on the Grizzly-Sardine-Can link below).

Bears are ranging out of the Yellowstone core area, but it’s because there’s not enough food there. Hence, the density of grizzlies has decreased. The population of Yellowstone bears has not increased for 15 years and has probably declined since 2007—coincidentally the date of the tipping point for methane release in the Arctic, the commencement of abrupt climate change, and the sudden death of whitebark pine trees in Yellowstone. Is there any chance these events could be related? You bet your ass.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/02/colorado-black-bear-management/ 

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5130361-155/grizzly-bear-habitat-to-expand-in

http://www.grizzlytimes.org/single-post/2015/12/17/Grizzly-Sardine-Can-Blues

Dear friends-

As you probably know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to strip Yellowstone’s grizzly bears of protection under the Endangered Species Act, and open the population up to hunting. The FWS states, astonishingly, that climate change does not constitute a threat now, or in the future, to grizzly bears.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would join me in sending comments to FWS opposing this delisting. Comments are most valuable when they raise questions about the substance of the agency’s proposal. It is not enough to simply state, “I oppose delisting the Yellowstone grizzlies.”

You might consider commenting about the effects of climate change on grizzly food sources, or on the foolhardiness of hunting the second-slowest reproducing land mammal in North America, or the uncertainty inherent in the vague triggers the agency has proposed to protect the bear in case of excessive mortality.

If you’d like to get some ideas, you can read my article on delisting that was published last month the Daily Beast: Grizzlies in the Crosshairs.

The agency is taking public comments on this proposal through Tuesday, May 10. Comments are being accepted electronically, Click Here. 

Comments are also being accepted via mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

Thank you for your help.

For the wild,

Doug Peacock

Just skip the "how I met the griz" stuff.

Interview with Doug Peacock - The Wildernist