I know everyone will hate this idea—and I mean, almost everyone—but, if current recreational trends continue, it might a good time to start accepting that grizzly country should be for grizzlies. Otherwise, it’s a near certainty that there will be more encounters that will equal more human deaths, which will almost always equal more grizzly deaths and further demonization of grizzlies. The the egocentric will hate it.
Alternatively, should people sign a waiver if they intend to walk, hike, backpack, fish, hunt, etc. in grizzly country agreeing they will not hold a bear accountable if they are attacked and agree the bear should not be killed?
In Idaho’s Selkirk Range, the Harrison Lake trail was closed because some moron with a loose dog had his camp raided by a moose and shot it.
Is it time for Glacier Park to control recreationalists, with more rules, like on National Forest land? Is that a good strategy? Or, is a no-use option the only solution? Why not just ban all recreation in griz country?
There are far too many people recreating in griz country. Humans are a menace to most wildlife. They remain the biggest threat to grizzlies. Just ban all recreation in griz country.
People in Great Falls showing up recently at a commission meeting to protest more development for recreation, stating they do not want Great Falls to be a recreation destination. They said: “Look at Bozeman and the Flathead – we don’t want that for Great Falls.”