What about nature? Author laments possible delisting and demise of the grizzly

The Flathead National Forest unveiled their latest con-job version of a collaborative management revision plan at their well-attended open house on March 17 in Kalispell, and, as expected, the plan was not friendly to grizzly bears and other wildlife.

It favored the timber industry cutting down trees, would be supportive of hunters and trappers killing wildlife (controlled by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks), and accepted outrageous pollution from motorized vehicle recreationists making too loud noise, emitting smoke exhaust, and gas and oil leaks — all to the obvious detriment of wildlife existence, per usual.

Why is this outcome so persistent?

We who call ourselves true environmentalists struggle mightily with both political parties, the Flathead National Forest, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and our nemeses — treasonous pseudo-environmentalist groups that have abandoned the true cause of wild nature in a misguided attempt to try to enhance their standing amongst these government agency groups, and a cynically apathetic general public, in our constant heartfelt efforts to defend wildlife and increase protective designated wilderness habitat for them.

My own circumstance is that I have no human family anywhere (“Last of the Mohicans”) and have adopted wildlife as my family, with the intention of saving them and their habitat for all time, and against overwhelming opposition from government agencies and the Republican political party to my doing so.

What are we up against in what seems to be never-ending battles with these government agencies and vote-seeking (animals cannot vote) inhumane pandering politicians that do not feel that wildlife deserve equal status with humans in living on this planet Earth?

The answer is complex because the so-called government experts in wildlife management seem to have hidden personal agendas for career and fame and glory while I only want to save wildlife. They appear to collude, coordinate, and collaborate to protect and cover for each other, while those speaking for the last wild places and wild things stand alone.

Too many in these government organizations are made up of lifetime tenured (cannot be fired for incompetence) employees that emphasize their own career paths, for high pay (at taxpayers’ expense), and are politically connected and astute enough to ensure job longevity — by “circling the wagons” and banding together to protect each other. 

Since they have achieved so much unchallenged power, it is only fair to give them their due public recognition for all they have accomplished in “managing” (killing) wildlife and “managing” forests (cutting down trees for profit) and limiting the increase of designated wilderness areas for wildlife habitat and generally contributing to the demise of wildlife, by now paying tribute and publically naming these public employees for future reference by our posterity.

n Kate Kendall, retired from U.S. Geological Survey, perhaps put grizzly bears in their greatest peril by counting them using DNA analyses of their hairs and producing controversial high numerical results that, in my opinion with a healthy dose of rational skepticism and critical scrutiny, were far greater than they actually are in the wild and thereby risking the bears being delisted from the protection of the Endangered Species Act, having their core habitat opened to harvesting the trees, and subsequently being hunted and trapped. The project funding for Kendall’s counting project, around $3 million to $4 million, was obtained with the help of Republicans such as U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and Montana Gov. Judy Martz with the expectation that it would result in grizzly bears being delisted.  

I imagine Kendall’s goal was to get the first-ever DNA population estimate of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem population so the agencies and public weren’t basing decisions on guesswork.  However, the analyses performed for DNA testing of grizzly bear hairs and statistical interpretation of the results were farmed out to a foreign country rather than being done here in the United States where citizen skeptics could have direct access using the Freedom of Information Act and obtaining data and statistical procedures.

But whether we can trust the numbers or not, it seems to me that it should be about adequate habitat and transportation corridors for grizzlies, not how many there are. The key is to save, not betray, the bears.

n Chris Servheen, Fish and Wildlife Service, is the long-ruling grizzly bear czar for recovery operations with no peer or overseer nor any checks and balances and a personal career based on his one-man total control of the bears’ future and acceptable annual mortality.

Traditionally, the Native American Indian tribes have been the best caretakers of wildlife and stewards of the land, but he discounts listening to their wisdom of nature to not delist the great bear.  Servheen has stated publically that he is not troubled by global warming and the scarcity of critical whitebark pine seeds and the threat of global warming to shallow-feeding cold water native trout species that has served as the best food source for grizzly bears; much to the chagrin of his contemporaries who cannot protest due to his controlling their funding to do their research.

“Recovering” grizzlies and prematurely delisting them would seem to be the crowning glory to his career and provide everlasting fame. But, what is best for the grizzly bear?

n Jim Williams recently was promoted to Region 1 manager for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Northwest Montana. He will have the lead role on how all wildlife are to be “managed” in the Flathead Forest and will carry out any death sentence for grizzly bears as he has for other animals in the past, such as mountain lions.

That is far too much power vested in one man. His subordinates probably cannot publically disapprove of upper management decisions. The general citizenry has no input, other than some public testimony that seems to carry no weight.  The Citizen Advisory Committee for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in this region seems to be limited to only hunters, trappers, guides, outfitters, ranchers, and farmers, but not open to real environmentalists.

n Joe Krueger, Flathead National Forest, has been in charge of writing forest management plans for over 10 years and appears to show a definite bias to pleasing the timber industry in their efforts to gain access to grizzly bear core habitat to cut down trees and to motorized vehicle recreationists’ efforts to gain roaded access to that habitat for fun and frolic, to the detriment of all wildlife and their habitat. 

Recently, his many so-called “collaborative” public meetings and testimony on the forest plan revision look to me to be merely a sham to fool the public, generally, and the real environmentalists, specifically, that they are being listened to. He does not seem to be an open advocate for wildlife.

The sham could have been carefully orchestrated and choreographed to establish a written record to justify a preordained result. It is unclear to me if my public and written commentary is retained for the permanent record and taken into consideration, or if Mr. Krueger and the Flathead National Forest only really listen to their favored groups. My comments might be all drowned out by the secretive collaboration to produce the Whitefish Range Partnership Plan incorporated into the forest’s revision plan.

Many of us real environmentalists were denied invitation to “collaborate” along with the pseudo-environmentalists who were invited. Joe Krueger is on record on a teleconference call to the Flathead Basin Commission meeting of April 8 declaring he started and promoted the many meetings of the Whitefish Range Partnership Plan, also attended by the chairman of the Flathead Basin Commission, Chas Cartwright, along with several pseudo-environmentalists. I was under the impression that such actions are against the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act process.

I clearly have problems with the work of these lifetime-tenured government public servants that get their pay from tax dollars and should be subject to my and other taxpayers’ scrutiny. The prime directive for far too many wildlife and land managers has become power, control, and career enhancement at the expense of the land and its creatures. Their premise is all wrong for wildlife.

Grizzly bears and other wildlife need to be protected from humans, not the other way around. My goal is to save grizzly bears, period.  They are a truly magnificent species deserving to live and thrive upon this Earth, and I have little concern for the career paths of those government employees in charge or faith that they will do the right thing by wildlife and wild places.

That is the end game. That is all that matters. We must prevent grizzlies from being delisted since the extreme right wing of the Republican Party has sworn to then never allow them to become listed again. NEVER. Goodbye to Montana’s vast tourist economy if that happens. Annually, 10 million tourists come to Montana to view wildlife… especially the grizzly bear. More jobs are tourism related than all others.

Designating all national forests to be wilderness areas, disallowing logging and snowmobiling, and depending on Mother Nature to care for wildlife and their habitat is definitely the way to go. Mother Nature never built a snowmobile or any other machinery, so they don’t belong in the forest.