Pockets of Wild

I didn't write this as an expert on land management and wildlife issues, or as a representative of any organization. I did write it as someone with strong concerns about where society as it relates to those issues is headed, and as an area resident who would like to meet others for informal discussions about the issues presented.

As I was growing up I always thought it to be pockets of humans surrounded by wild.Now I sadly see it's pockets of wild surrounded by humans.

In the 1960's when I majored in Wildlife Biology at the University of Nevada/Reno, a few astute professors were using the term "bio-politics". All I ever wanted was to be in the field with a clipboard observing wild critters, especially carnivores. I would hate to be working in bear or carnivore biology now in these difficult and complex times.

As more and more humans squeeze into pockets of wild, wildlife-human conflict increases. A major component of wildlife management now is the understanding of and interacting with the human dimension since conflict issues are present with all types, from folks in urbanized Missoula to ranchers east of the Divide. The issues call for wildlife managers to use extreme deft with social aspects...with people...especially now due to our changing social landscape. That changing social landscape includes: fewer hunters which provide funds for our wildlife agencies; massive growth in recreation including mountain bikers, river floaters, hikers, snowmobilers and ATVers - folks loving the wild to death; and increased development and subdivisions in not just the Wildland-Urban Interface, but also large ranches in rural areas being parceled and sold to those wanting to own their "piece of wild". (Disclaimer: I am not opposed to any of the recreational activities that I mentioned but I do have a concern with the dramatic increase in some areas.)

Not many months ago I read an article in the Colorado Springs Gazette, "Outdoor recreation dilemma: Should nature be altered to make it safer for the public?" The article lists factors ranging from increased signage to altering the land itself.

I consider my time in bear management in Glacier National Park. If there was a grizzly hanging out in a backcountry area, that area was closed until the bear moved on. If there was a carcass near a trail, that area of the trail was closed until the carcass was eaten. Were bears hazed out of back country areas or carcasses hauled out in order to make it safer for backcountry hikers? No, and I believe it should never be considered. Why sanitize a landscape for the already too many people who are frequenting it? When recreating, the idea is to enter the wild on its terms, not to sanitize it, and to enter it fully aware of the potential hazards.

And regarding human development areas, we in Seeley Lake know well the bear conflict issues here, primarily food attractants made too readily available for bears. I have found bear scat full of human garbage, and I assisted with capture of a sub-adult female grizzly that was collared on the Flathead Reservation due to causing chicken coop damage, that chicken coop not protected by electric wire. She crossed over the Mission Mountains, was observed by me in the Dogtown area, and a week later was captured at the MT Highway Department's Clearwater maintenance facility.

Connecting corridors

We humans are fairly settled in our homes, our habitat.

But wildlife move.

They have to.

With isolated pockets of wildlife core habitat areas, connecting corridors for those areas is critical, both to avoid genetic isolation and for seasonal migrations. Young carnivores disperse in order to connect with other populations of their species, which avoids inbreeding. Genetic isolation of grizzlies is one of the concerns for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Plus bears move with the seasons, starting with den emergence and moving to lowland areas in order to forage on available vegetation, then to middle elevation areas when berries are ripe, then again back down to lowland areas, then back high to den. Those necessary spring and fall lowland areas are often on or near private lands. Elk and other ungulates move with the season. Wyoming Game and Fish and the University of Wyoming have documented pronghorn antelope seasonal migrations traveling 120 miles each season, and mule deer traveling 150 miles each season. Large portions of those necessary routes are on private and industrially developed lands. A Yellowstone elk herd migrates from the park each fall to lower elevation ranches in Wyoming, many of those ranches now being parceled or sub-divided

With core habitat areas facing more pressure from outside development, and since core habitat connecting corridors usually cross private lands and involve multiple government agencies, it is very complex. An added concern in Montana and Wyoming is the grizzly bears' attempted expansion back into areas they historically inhabited. The bulk of those lands are large working cattle or sheep ranches.

I recently read an excellent book: Path of the Puma by Jim Williams, a supervisory biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He details his 30 plus year work with mountain lions in Montana and Puma in Patagonia. Williams sums up well the critical and necessary three C's: 1. Core habitat, 2. Connecting corridors, and 3. Carnivores. Williams opens the book detailing a sub-adult lion's travel as it disburses from the National Bison Range, crossing private lands and using the wildlife passage tunnel under Highway 93 – utilizing connecting corridors to find an area that will become its home range. He closes the book detailing concern for an ungulate herd in an area of South America that is threatened by a proposed megadam that will flood its critical home territory.