Island Park Idaho

I read with interest (and some frustration) the article in the Island Park News about the plight of the grizzly bear in America. It seems that they haven’t been introduced and / or haven’t flourished over the years. They don’t do well around people or civilization, and they apparently need some good, old-fashioned, peace and quiet (like me on a Saturday morning.)

While it’s easy to get caught up in worrying about the poor grizzly bear, I think several things need to be kept in mind. First, when the grizzly bears flourished here, people didn’t really populate this area. Sure, there were a few Indians (native Americans if you’re left handed,) but by and large, there wasn’t a population base to speak of. When the people came, the bears dwindled. So if you’re going to have a bear population you have to get rid of the humans.

How do you do that? By designating wilderness areas, etc. I know some of the best country for ATV’ing and snowmobiling is up on black canyon. But they shut that down to motorized vehicles to give the grizzly bears a place to be. Yes, you can hike there, but nobody does. Really, who wants to go hike in a place infested with grizzly bears? So the land is, in effect, useless to humans. We don’t use the resources, we don’t enjoy the beauty, we don’t go there and photograph it — nada.

And when you get right down to it, that’s true of most of Idaho. Our last real democrat senator, Frank Church (of the Panama Canal giveaway fame,) somehow designated much of Idaho as “wilderness area.” Wilderness area means no motorized vehicles, no development, etc. What this does is effectively shut down this area. For what? To have a place where people can go to see how things were 200 years ago.

I like that idea — intellectually. Isn’t that great? We were told it was being done for the common good. Now there is a place where everyone can go and see how things used to be. That’s a great and very noble intent. The problem is, nobody does. To get into that country you have to float, walk or ride a horse. Floating doesn’t really get you “into” the country, you’re really just passing through. So you have to walk or ride a horse. (NOTE: There are a few airstrips they haven’t closed yet, but they are not widely used.)

So what percentage of the population has even seen this area? If you mean the population of Idaho, it’s a tiny percentage. If you mean the population of the USA (which people are the “owners” of the land,) the number is so small as to be ridiculous.

I guess my question is, what good is a place that everyone can go if nobody goes? What have we accomplished? We’ve created a place where a teeny tiny percentage of the population (the “elitists”) can enjoy. The rest of us get no benefit from it whatsoever.

It’s also interesting to me that these things happen in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and not in New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc. There used to be wolves, grizzlies, cougars, etc., there that were pushed out by humanity. Why are the people from those states so hell-bent on re-introducing them here? Why do they want us to bear the brunt of “the benefit of all?” Why are they not “blooming where they’re planted?” Why do they not push their people aside for the benefit of the animals (endangered and otherwise) whose well being they so jealously protect?

More than half the state of Idaho is “public” land. Meaning it’s “locked up” to the point the average person will never use it. How much of those above-mentioned New England states are taken up in “public” land? Or what percentage of their states is designated wilderness area? That all used to be wilderness. I think we should put some of it back into wilderness and re-introduce wolves and grizzly bears and see how well they like that. I’d be really curious to see if they still feel the same way.

The bottom line of this whole discussion is, if you want to see grizzlies flourish, you’re going to have to do so at the expense of humans. Most liberals have no problem with that (especially if it’s not in their back yard.) Most conservatives think the rights / needs / activities of humans trump those of the animals. Neither side is going to be convinced by the other.

As far as the grizzlies, let’s see Washington, Oregon, Northern California, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and others do their part then I’m ready to take the next step here. If we’re all going to do it, great. If I’m the only one doing things for “the benefit of all” then count me out. Thus far this has been a give and take relationship — we give they take. . . . not exactly what I would have proposed.

Well, ’tis the season. The road construction season, that is. Road repair crews are popping up all over Island Park and there is serious expansion of the road (new passing lanes, etc.) in several locations.

While I’m normally a complainer toward road construction delays (especially where there is no alternate route to avoid the construction) this is important work. Island Park has seen a marked increase in traffic over the last few years and much of that traffic consists of RV’s, motor homes, big rigs, vehicles with trailers full of toys behind, etc., all of which slow things down.

The biggest danger of an accident here in Island Park is from some impatient soul who can’t wait to be ahead of a long line of slower traffic. As these people push the envelope, we’re all at risk. For that reason, I applaud the state of Idaho in their efforts to make our highways safer.

Delays have been short up to this point — about 10 - 12 minutes max. Flag crews have been good to keep things moving and not let things get out of hand. And look at it this way: if you have to be stuck in traffic somewhere, there is no better place than Island Park to do so.

So be patient and don’t let the delay get to you. Oh, and by the way, if you feel inspired to offer a cold one to the flagger, don’t be shy. I’ve never see one turn down anything cold and wet. It might not help you get through the construction any faster, but it will sure make his / her day!

It seems there’s a big black bear hanging around cabins in the Macks Inn area of Island Park lately. The bear has lost his natural fear of humans and is starting to make a nuisance of himself.

In the last few days (a week or two) the bear has been seen on several decks in the area, making it obvious that someone has been feeding him. I have heard people talking, saying, “I like it when the bears come around. I even like it when they’re up on my deck, because I can sit safely inside and snap a few photos. What does it hurt if I leave a little something to encourage the bear to come to my place so I can do that?”

The answer is simple. If the bear starts to become a nuisance, he may be relocated at a great cost to the taxpayers. If he becomes aggressive after not finding food, he’ll most likely be put down (that’s euthanized — killed — for those not from around here.) Bears that are “human habituated” and not deemed able to be rehabilitated are always put down.

So the long and short is, feeding bears may well take their lives. These are not cuddly lap animals. They are big, very strong, and can be unstoppable once they’re spun up. Be wise about leaving food out. Keeping your deck and other areas around your cabin or campsites clean may well save the life of an unwitting bear. That’s conservation at its most basic if you ask me.

The Sierra Club, et al, are seeking a “re-listing” as it were of grizzly bears (which were taken off the endangered species list May 1, 2007.) They think that grizzlies aren’t protected enough and that only they can save them.

The things I find interesting about this situation include the fact that none of those groups seem to live where grizzlies do. They sit back in Washington, file their spurious lawsuits and try to intimidate lawmakers into doing something that has no need of doing.

Another thing I find interesting is that they somehow have the misguided idea that bears (or whatever other endangered group) is more important than the people. I find that remarkably similar to the misguided idea some people have that the “right” to medical treatment of an illegal alien is somehow more important than the “right” of one who is legal (and has paid into the system for years.)

With a host of other things about this that range from reasonable to absurd, I’m going to stop. The courts will decide how this should go — not the people who are elected, who live and work here, who have some important input — the courts. Those people who know the least about this whole thing will decide how it should be for everyone. You gotta give one thing to liberals: they know how to work the system.