Partnering with the bear

Conservation Northwest's Joe Scott (international conservation director) writes in response to a recent article on grizzly bears:

I appreciate Jonathan Guzzo’s well-thought out article about grizzly bear recovery in the North Cascades in the August 2007 issue of Washington Trails.

From the philosophical standpoint, society has wrestled, and will continue to wrestle, with the question of how much we “tame” wilderness. In other words, what we expect our wild areas to provide for us and at what point those expectations may tend to diminish wild areas and the very benefits we derive from them.

That’s not to say that people and “wild nature” should exist side by side but not together. Human beings must continue to seek ways to integrate into the natural world while protecting biological diversity. It’s those “natural wonders” that draw us into wilderness and indeed why many of us hike – to slow down a hectic world and recharge, with wildness and its rhythms as the power supply.

If we accept that “as hikers we are committed to preserving the wildlands…and the wildlife that depend on them,” as Jonathan says, can we draw a line at any particular species and say “except this one"? Are grizzly bears not counted among the “natural wonders” that Jonathan says we must steward for generations next?

From a practical standpoint, grizzlies and people both need wilderness. The only difference is that a grizzly’s wilderness needs are a bit more pressing – their everyday survival depends on it. Thus, we could view grizzly bears as partners in wilderness protection, not competitors for its use. All the grizzly needs in return is our respect for its basic needs, not our exclusion from its habitat.

That may mean some temporary trail closures to accommodate a seasonal or opportunistic bear food source, but likely very little else, especially given the time it will take to recover grizzlies. According to agency wildlife officials no trail in any grizzly recovery zone has ever been permanently closed on behalf of bears.

Grizzly bears can’t be blamed for trail maintenance budget shortfalls, nor will recovery activities compete for trail funds. It is possible, however that the Forest Service may be factoring in grizzly bear habitat needs when it makes tough decisions about which trails to maintain within its constrained budgets.

But those decisions and upcoming forest and park plan revisions provide a great opportunity for government, recreation and conservation interests to work together on a world-class recreation infrastructure for the future. This is something to which my organization recognizes is a prerequisite to successful grizzly recovery.

A growing Cascades grizzly population is an insurance policy for wilderness AND recreation opportunities.

Read another response in a blog entry posted on the Grizzly Bear Outreach Project