Dear HCN,
Kudos on HCN’s most
recent issue covering the “Grizzly War” (HCN, 11/9/98). The piece
by Todd Wilkinson is both timely and dead on target. I must say,
however, that I was rather amazed to read under “Idaho grizzly plan
shifts into low gear,” that “Environmentalists are silent on
grizzly reintroduction.” Environmentalists, both in the U.S. and
Canada (where 43 groups signed a letter of opposition), have been
vocal and vehement in their opposition to the ROOTS proposal since
day one.
The ROOTS proposal was, and is, a
failure because it was a “consensus’ effort in name only;
systematically excluded the 98 percent of environmentalists who
disagreed; failed to comprehensively reach out to opponents beyond
the original core group; convinced no Idaho politicos either of its
worth or inevitability; totally ignored the best available science
on grizzly bear recovery needs; and repeatedly tried to stretch,
change or ignore federal endangered species law to buy off
opponents.
Somewhere along the way, proponents
completely confused “process’ (consensus at all costs) with an
ecologically sound product (conservation of the grizzly). The
result is a document with no basis in science and tenuous links to
the law, that has simultaneously alienated virtually the entire
environmental community, ticked off Idaho and Montana politicians,
mobilized anti-grizzly types, and guaranteed that the effort will
take more time, cost more money and increase
divisiveness.
Brian
Peck
Columbia Falls,
Montana
The writer is a
wildlife consultant with several environmental groups and
educational institutions.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline In Idaho: A grizzly consensus plan didn’t exist.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
