Economic, Social and Cultural Impacts of Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones
Note: the following is a comment that was submitted yesterday to the US Forest Service regarding the Grizzly Bear and actions the Forest Service will be taking regarding road and land closures.
by Kevin Kimp, Idaho For Wildlife [here], June 22, 2009
To: United States Forest Service
From: Idaho For Wildlife
Re: Comments in regards to Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement — Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones
We are against any encumbrances to the people affected by the proposed DSEIS because of but not limited to the following reasons.
In talking with highly respected biologists, including Dr. Charles Kay of Utah State University, I have been told that more research is needed on sustainable bear numbers per BMU. It appears with the current land management practices implemented on our federal lands within these BMU’s there is not enough habitat to support the numbers that the USFWS is trying to obtain in the timeframe in which it is trying to obtain the numbers. Management practices to create habitat should include timber harvest and controlled burns thereby creating habitat that will grow vegetation to support an ungulate prey base which may include deer, elk, moose and wooland caribou, as well as vegetation to sustain and grow Grizzly Bear numbers.
We were informed at a KVRI (Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative) meeting, regarding Alternative E (which the USFS supports), that most units which effect Boundary County road closures, or obliterations would only occur behind locked gates and most of those roads were now brushed in and impassable. If the road is located behind a locked gate does a grizzly bear really care?
Linda McFaddan of the USFS stated “there have been several studies that prove restricting access to roads on National Forest Service Lands do not deal with the mortality issues grizzly bears face. Most of the mortalities take place on private lands, in Canada, or they’ve occurred within wilderness areas within huge blocks of forest that are far away from each other.”
Also, listed in the DSEIS is the change of dates for the opening of gates in the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone. The later opening of these gates will take land access away from hunters, wood gatherers and other public uses. In this area most roads are impassable by the first of December, at which time the gates would be opened according to the DSEIS.
Another issue regarding recovery in the Selkirks is the structure of BMU’s that lie within the Selkirk range. The U.S. public is penalized because part of our recovery zone lies within Canada. We were informed by Wayne Wakkinen of the IDFG that in part of this zone Grizzly Bears are killed on a frequent basis because of damage to apple orchards (in the Canadian portion of the BMU). Eastern areas of the Cabinet Yaak recovery zones are quite close to units in Eastern British Columbia where there are current hunting seasons for Grizzly Bear. Also, Wayne Wakkinen of the IDFG stated that IDFG is trying to trap a bear in the McCarthur Lake area, which will be taken out of the Selkirks and released in another BMU. This is another bear that we (the community) will have to replace to obtain the ultimate goal of delisting.
Other issues include the Economic, Social and Cultural impacts to effected communities as listed below.
ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/CULTURAL IMPACTS OF REDUCED MOTORIZED ACCESS DUE TO GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY EFFORTS IN BOUNDARY AND BONNER COUNTIES
ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/CULTURAL IMPACTS DUE TO LOWERED PARTICIPATION IN HUNTING (ONE EXAMPLE) CAUSED BY REDUCED MOTORIZED ACCESS DUE TO GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY EFFORTS IN BOUNDARY AND BONNER COUNTIES :
Fewer Idaho residents and non-residents participate in late summer, fall and late fall hunts for reason of reduced hunting areas and fewer opportunities for road-side camps and trailhead camps (marked or provisional) that are accessible by motor vehicle.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Motor fuel sales related to hunting decline in the area of the Upper Idaho Panhandle (UIP) from in and around the I-90 corridor, North to the Canada Border.
Camp grocery and stock feed sales to hunters decline in the UIP.
Hunting related, camping, saddle and tack sales decline in the UIP.
Hunting rifle, muzzle-loader and hunting bow sales to hunters decline as do sales of ammunition, ammunition components, arrows and optics as well as other related supplies and equipment in the UIP.
Specialty and seasonal hunting clothing and footwear sales to hunters decline in the UIP.
Taxidermy services and game meat processing services to hunters decline in the UIP.
Lodging and restaurant/bar patronage by hunters decline in the UIP.
Hunting outfitter services decline in the UIP.
Ferrier services to hunters decline in the UIP.
Charter and general aviation services used by hunters decline in the UIP.
US Forest Service fees paid for hunter outfitter service days decline in the UIP.
Idaho Fish and Game resident and non-resident hunting license, tag and fee revenues decline from lost hunter participation in the UIP.
The economic impacts briefly outlined above can be supplemented by multiple tiers of other impacts such as the full range of hunter utilized four and two wheeled drive vehicles, their regular maintenance as well as spare parts and consumable components such as tires and batteries.
Similar economic impacts can be attributed to reduced participation in fishing and to a lesser degree trapping. Add to those impacts the similar impacts of reduced participation in snowmobiling, firewood gathering as well as mushroom and berry picking. Finally, there is the impact of fewer nice days in the woods experienced by area families and their friends and neighbors.
It is interesting that the US Forest Service (USFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have, in great detail, listed the most up-to-date needs of Grizzly Bears from the most recent science they can produce but continue to rely upon archaic and incomplete surveys and clichés to obscure the true and complete economic losses to the UIP brought about by the desire to recover those same bears. Both agencies have failed the citizens of the UIP by ignoring the need to produce focused, accurate and up to date reliable social science data related to economic loss in the area caused by Grizzly Bears.
Boundary and Bonner Counties presently have unemployment rates of 11.1% and 8.6% respectively. The present administration in Washington DC is spending trillions of tax dollars in a stimulus program to save and create jobs. The USFS and the USFWS seem to be engaged in programs that are taking jobs away from the citizens of the UIP. It seems that those agencies continue to verify what a majority of area residents hold to be true. “Grizzly Bears are more important than the economic well-being of the people in Northern Bonner County and of Boundary County”.
Grizzly Bear recovery has significantly contributed to the protracted decline and virtual disappearance of timber harvest on area federal lands and now threaten the very activities, “replacement” industries and economic sectors (local hunting, fishing, trapping, outdoor recreation and the gathering and picking of forest grown food and fuel resources as well as non-resident participation in the aforementioned activities plus tourism) of the greater area’s economy that federal government agencies have long touted as being that economic saviors of the very same area.
Similar scenarios have played themselves out throughout the Inland Mountain West. To quote a statement that was part of a presentation made to the Idaho Fish and Game Commissio several years ago by the Boundary County Board of Commissioners, a commissioner posed the question, “Where do the residents of Boundary County get to hunt, fish, recreate and work given the restrictions placed upon them by the federal government’s recovery programs in our county for the multiple species protected under the Endangered Act?”
SOCIAL/CULTURAL IMPACTS:
The activity of hunting throughout the world has contributed to the social and cultural development and evolution of both present day tribal and non-tribal peoples. What follows is a non-tribal perspective.
Hunting develops in young men and women an appreciation for nature, its weather and terrain as well as important personal skills and abilities such as personal conditioning, self reliance, knowledge of the environment, navigation, marksmanship, tracking, species recognition, conservation, game management, personal responsibility, ethical behavior, weapons safety and the importance of quick and decisive kills once the decision to take a game animal has been made. Additionally hunting provides bonding in families and among friends and neighbors as well as reinforcing teamwork and the experience of contributing one’s labor during the process of bringing a game animal from the place of the kill to the dinner table for the further experience of enjoying the delights that nature has provided along with stories of the hunt. The hunt is not recreation but an activity that means different things to those who participate in the hunt and it contributes in a significant manner to rural and sparsely populated urban cultural values.
At no time in our country’s history more than the present do our nation’s younger generations need generous supplies of the components of social development and life experiences that the hunt provides. We need more young citizens who have been personally prepared through those experiences and who have an identification with a cultural value system stemming from legal and ethical hunting of herds and populations of game species judged to be adequate and fit to hunt by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Losses to hunting participation brought on by motor vehicle mobility restrictions stemming from Endangered Species Act requirements (in this case Grizzly Bear recovery attempts) has the effect of significantly hindering the personal social development, bonding and cultural grounding with family members and friends, of young people that is so necessary in giving them the confidence and self reliance they need in a modern and often confusing world. A similar case can be made for fishing and, to a lesser degree, trapping.
CONCLUSION:
The USFS and the USFWS have paid little to no attention to the economic social and cultural losses that have and will be suffered by adults and younger generations of non-tribal citizens and their families related to the motorized vehicle restrictions stemming from Grizzly Bear recovery efforts in the Northern UIP. Neither agency has attempted to measure those important impacts. The obvious lack of supporting empirical data related to economic/social/cultural conditions of citizens attempting to carry out commerce and to live normal lives in the UIP make the EIS alternatives incomplete regarding those economic, social and cultural losses and their effect on local citizens.
List of acronyms:
USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USFS = United States Forest Service
IDFG = Idaho Department of Fish and Game
BMU = Bear Management Unit
KVRI = Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative
DSEIS = Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
UIP = Upper Idaho Panhandle
