I don’t know much about Conservation Northwest, a
Seattle-based nonprofit dedicated to “protecting, connecting and restoring
wildlands and wildlife” from the Washington Coast to the British Columbia
Rockies. I like what I do know. I know it’s an affiliate of the National
Wildlife Federation, a good organization I used to work for and continue to
support. The organization’s founder and executive director, Mitch Friedman,
seems to be a smart guy who passionately fights for a lot of important,
worthwhile causes. Some folks might even consider him an extreme
fundamentalist. I don’t. I’ve got a hunch he and I likely see eye-to-eye on
most things.
He doesn’t handle disagreement so well. I was disappointed
to read a harsh, erroneous rant he recently posted on his organization’s blog
site unjustly ridiculing and attacking Wilderness Watch, a Missoula-based
nonprofit I’ve supported since its inception in 1989.
In addition to other allegations, Friedman wrongly accuses
the folks at Wilderness Watch of making “uninformed” statements and writes,
“Such behavior, whether it’s out of laziness, ignorance, unbridled idealism, or
any other cause, should be called out." In a Facebook post, he calls it
“Fundamentalism. No different than evangelicals. It’s a mental illness.”
I’ve suffered from mental health issues. It’s not fun. It’s
nothing to make light off. There exists a lot of stigmas related to mental
illness; Friedman’s comments don’t help. I mentioned that in a reply to his
Facebook post, and wrote, “Insinuating others have mental illness because they
don’t agree with you is childish, rude and insulting.”
His response, in part: “I’m sorry to have offended you. But
I wasn’t being glib. . . there is plenty of academic writing on how
fundamentalism acts like a mental disease to impair clear thinking.” Apparently, Dr. Friedman arrogantly sees himself as the
expert who gets to diagnose such things. Here’s what he sees as the symptoms:
Wilderness Watch recently took a position that differs from
his organization’s regarding a plan by the U.S. Park Service and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to translocate grizzlies into the North Cascades in
Washington. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement considers a range of
alternatives – a “no action” alternative (A) and three action alternatives (B,
C and D) that entail various levels of translocating captured bears from
elsewhere, such as British Columbia and Montana, and releasing them in the
Cascades. The ultimate goal is to establish a sustainable population of 200
grizzlies within the Northern Cascades Ecosystem where few, if any, grizzlies
currently exist.
Like Friedman, and Conservation Northwest, I prefer
Alternative C, known as the “incremental restoration” alternative, which would
move 25 grizzlies into the ecosystem over the next 5-10 years.
My friends at Wilderness Watch disagree. Although they support
the recovery of grizzlies in the North Cascades, they oppose the alternatives
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the following reasons: The use
of helicopters (anywhere from 50 to 400 or more landings, they say) within
designated wilderness areas, which violates the intent of the Wilderness Act of
1964; The stress, discomfort, disruption and possible death that could result
from capturing, drugging and handling grizzlies; Bears would be removed from
populations that are endangered, and because there is no “natural recovery”
alternative being considered that would encourage and allow grizzlies to move
in on their own.
Friedman responded to these reasonable, legitimate concerns
like Donald Trump on a childish Twitter rage. He called Wilderness Watch’s
concerns “so uninformed and ill-founded that it made me a bit embarrassed for
the conservation movement as a whole . . . While Wilderness Watch’s argument
may read well on paper and feel righteous to whoever wrote it, it is
ill-informed.”
Then Friedman goes on to ‘refute’ Wilderness Watch with an
argument that may read well on a blog, and make him feel righteous, but is
ill-informed and packed with falsehoods. Friedman’s behavior, whether it’s out of laziness,
ignorance, unbridled idealism, or any other cause, should be called out:
He correctly points out that individual incidences of
capture-related mortality are rare, but either dismisses or ignores other
concerns, backed by research, about the biological and ethical implications of
frequently capturing, drugging, collaring and handling grizzlies.
My friend and Canadian wildlife biologist Kevin Van Tighem, former
supervisor of Waterton and Banff National Parks, wrote this: “With regard to
concerns about the dangers of transplanting bears: one of Alberta's leading
grizzly experts documented a case where a healthy large male grizzly died of
capture-related myopathy several days after having been leg-snared for research
and he tells me he now suspects that there are more cases of this than
believed. Grizzlies are powerful animals after all -- they can do a lot of harm
to themselves fighting a snare but then, being tough survivors, also carry on
with life (or a slow death) with little sign of the damage they've suffered. So
concerns about handling risk etc. are completely valid.”
Whether or not you agree with the statements and concerns
expressed by the folks at Wilderness Watch, they don’t seem so fundamentalist,
or derived from mental illness to me.
Friedman insinuates that the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly population
has been recovered. It hasn’t. Translocating bears into the area might be
helping, but the population is barely hanging on and faces a lot of threats
from continued human expansion and fragmentation of habitat. (Wilderness
Watch is helping with the fight to protect critical grizzly habitat in the
Yaak.)
Friedman states that grizzly populations in northern Montana
and British Columbia are “robust.”
They’re not.
Many scientists – and those of us who spend tons of time out
among wild grizzlies, and have dedicated much of our lives to protecting wild
grizzlies – know that, although we’ve come along way, our populations in
Montana continue to face numerous threats and challenges from climate-change
related alteration in habitat and diet, causing bears to expand more in search
of alternative foods, which put them more in conflict with a growing and
expanding human population. Grizzlies occupy less than two-percent of their
historic ranges. More than 100 have been lost over the past 24 months to
various human-caused factors. They are still listed as endangered. And because
grizzlies are an apex predator that did not evolve with predation, and have
slow reproductive rates, the loss of even a few grizzlies – particularly
breeding-age sows and mature boars -- can have detrimental and long-term
impacts to territorial and breeding behavior, the rearing and learning-periods
for cubs and the overall long-term health and viability of populations. It can
also result in increased conflicts between bears and humans.
Whether or not you agree with the statements and concerns
expressed by the folks at Wilderness Watch, it doesn’t seem so fundamentalist,
or derived from mental illness to me.
Friedman also accuses Wilderness Watch of a “falsehood” that
“reveals lazy research” for stating that “information is lacking on the status
of grizzlies on the Canadian side of the border.” Friedman states that
“researchers have very good estimates of the state of grizzly populations in
southern B.C.”
I talk to researchers in British Columbia about grizzly
bears on a regular basis. Estimates of grizzly numbers in British Columbia
vary, ranging from 6,000 to 17,000. Most biologists I talk to put the number at
15,000. “The non-precise population numbers in BC are reflective of low
government funding for research and inventory,” states a report from the
British Columbia Wilderness Committee. According to the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, “estimates of populations sizes are based
mostly on expert opinion, or extrapolation of estimates from small study areas
to larger geographic areas, and are therefore considered uncertain . . . with
no scientifically rigorous research to confirm numbers.”
Van Tighem writes: “The NCDE population, which we share, has
been expanding for several years and we now have bears resident in areas where
they hadn't been seen for a century. Yes, they continue to face a variety of
risks but human caused mortality, which is the most critical one, is way down.
So I do believe we could spare the bears without a negative conservation
consequence here.”
Whether or not you agree with the folks at Wilderness Watch,
based on my non-lazy research their statements and concerns don’t seem so
fundamentalist, or derived from mental illness to me.
Friedman also claims that the folks at Wilderness Watch
“grossly exaggerate” the number of helicopter runs needed to transport bears
into the North Cascades. They don’t. In fact, they understated it. Wilderness
Watch claims that “anywhere from 50 to 400 helicopter trips could be made.” But
according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, alternative C would
require “up to 4 flights per release” with “5-7 releases per year for 5-10
years” resulting in “at least 100 flights.” Alternative D would
require up to “672 flights.”
“With regard to the Wilderness Watch concerns about
protecting the integrity of protected wilderness, that's another legitimate
concern,” Van Tighem writes. “For decades I observed (and was sometimes guilty
of), and came to fervently oppose, the ways in which insiders like agency staff
and holders of research permits give themselves exemptions from rules that
apply to everyone else. Helicopter access being a case in point. Heli-hiking is
not permitted in Canada's mountain national parks, but the air is full of
helicopters transporting staff, researchers, their gear and food and their
excrement to and from everywhere. When I was responsible for producing the
current Banff management plan, I made sure there was direction there that
operational use of helicopters would be restricted to emergency purposes only.
Then I retired -- and the helicopters continue to buzz everywhere.”
Whether or not you agree with the statements and concerns
expressed by the folks at Wilderness Watch, they don’t seem grossly
exaggerated, fundamentalist, or derived from mental illness to me.
What seems to trigger Friedman the most is Wilderness
Watch’s preference for “natural recovery.” “Such a position is wholly uninformed by the current
scarcity of grizzlies across the region, the existing barriers in southern
British Columbia to grizzly bear movement into the Cascades and the reproductive and dispersal limitation of female bears,” he wrote. “To achieve
the stated goal of grizzly bear recovery in the North Cascades, independent and
government biologists are unequivocal that bear translocations into the
ecosystem are necessary.”
Van Tighem doesn’t seem to think natural recovery is so
far-fetched: “I personally disagree with trying to fast-track species recovery
when a species is endangered by issues related to habitat integrity,” he
writes. “I don't think we should do that to them if there is already a
population in the Cascades or if there is potential for bears to spread there
on their own.”
I agree somewhat with Friedman on this. It’s why I support
Alternative C. If there are indeed some grizzlies remaining in the Cascades of
Washington, and reliable folks say there is, there isn’t time to wait for
natural recovery. The bears could go extinct by then. Like many wildlife
biologists and others, I’d prefer to see more brought in fairly quickly, and
soon.
But is Wilderness Watch’s statement a sign of fundamentalism
and mental illness?
Couldn’t a “natural recovery” alternative have been examined
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? The report states that the
“natural recovery” option is “characterized by the no-action alternative,” and
that it would be “highly unlikely” to happen and would not meet the “purpose
and need” of the recovery goals. But the folks at Wilderness Watch aren’t suggesting
“no action,” they are suggesting actions be taken in surrounding areas,
particularly in British Columbia, to address and reduce human-bear conflicts;
the related ongoing killing of grizzlies; activities that diminish grizzly
habitat, and taking actions to protect, enhance and expand habitat and
migratory corridors with the hope grizzlies eventually move in to the Cascades.
I don’t agree in this case, but it’s certainly not a sign of
mental illness. It does trigger some déjà vu.
In 1999 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a plan
to reintroduce 25 grizzlies to the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness and surrounding
area as an “experimental, nonessential” population that would not be fully
protected under the Endangered Species Act. The National Wildlife Federation,
Defender of Wildlife and the Idaho forest products industry created and
supported the plan. It had some merits. I sided and worked with the opposing
side, with groups including the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Great Bear
Foundation, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Sierra Club,
the Craighead Wildlife/Wildlands Institute and Wilderness Watch. We opposed the
plan for several reasons: We believed grizzlies already inhabited the area and
therefore deserved (as required by law) full protection under the Endangered
Species Act. We also felt that, given a chance, bears would eventually move in
on their own. Before a decision was made, the plan was killed when George W. Bush moved into the White House.
But here’s my point: At the time, many experts – numerous
experts -- said that bears never would, never could move in on their own. There
were too many obstacles, they said. They were unequivocal that bear
translocations into the ecosystem were necessary.
But the bears are moving in. Yes, it’s taken nearly 20 years
or so, but it’s happening. This isn’t to say that the same would happen in the
North Cascades. Even if it did, as I stated earlier, any grizzlies that may
still inhabit the Cascades don’t have that kind of time.
But whether you agree with them or not, the statements from
the folks at Wilderness Watch don’t seem so unreasonable, fundamentalist, or
derived from mental illness to me.
Yet Friedman persists in referring to my friends at
Wilderness Watch as fundamentalists with mental illness.
“I'm not going to debate this with you,” he wrote to me.
“The folks at WW may be your friends, but their advocacy here is beyond
misguided and uninformed, it (not for the first time) exposes a blind spot. You
may not like the name I've given to that blind spot, but I'm ok with that.”
“Not for the first time,” he writes.
It’s certainly not the
first time Wilderness Watch has been accused as being fundamentalists by
arrogant, misguided and uninformed people like Friedman. Adhering to the
principles, laws, regulations and intent of the wilderness Act doesn’t sit well
with a lot of people. Anthropocentrism is deeply ingrained in the human psyche.
A business mentality prevails among federal land managers (and, increasingly
so, among conservation and environmental groups) that people are customers,
that their every desire and whim must be served. If opinion polls reveal that
58.6 percent of respondents want more loop trails, picnic tables, lean-tos,
stocked lakes and helicopter landing pads then, by golly, that’s what they’ll
get, Wilderness Act be damned. Leadership—providing people with purpose,
direction and motivation, explaining to people what is right, persuading them
to follow—is sadly lacking, replaced instead by policies of compromise and
appeasement. Those who get in the way on matters of principle are dismissed as
"extremists," "purists," "elitists,"
"fundamentalists" . . . "mentally ill."
One of the founders of Wilderness Watch, Bill Worf, was a
friend of mine. Like me, he was a Marine. Like my father, he fought in the
battle of Iwo Jima. He was instrumental in passage of the Wilderness Act,
developed Forest Service regulations regarding the act, and was the first
wilderness manager for the Forest Service. He died in 2011 at the age of 85.
Although he went blind in his later years, I don’t believe he suffered from
mental illness, although he was often called a “fundamentalist” for defending
the Wilderness Act.
Once, while having dinner with him, he told me why he helped
create Wilderness Watch. In the late 1980s, after he had retired, the Forest
Service was allowing commercial outfitters and guides to build and leave
permanent structures in the Frank Church River of Return Wilderness, in direct
and clear violation of the Wilderness Act. Bill tried to get groups such as The
Wilderness Society and Sierra Club to get involved, but they refused. They
didn’t want to anger outfitters and guides, or groups like the Idaho Outfitters
and Guides Association, because they relied on their support to help get other
wild areas designated as wilderness.
I understand the need for organizations to build alliances.
I have worked for the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Trout
Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation and Montana Wildlife Federation. I also
served two terms as President of the Montana Wildlife Federation. Compromise
and collaboration are important; they have their place. But what good is
wilderness – how wild will wilderness remain – if the Wilderness Act is not
enforced?
So Bill helped formed Wilderness Watch, to serve as a
watchdog and ensure management agencies follow the spirit, law and intent of
the Wilderness Act.
I have tremendous admiration and respect for the current
executive director of Wilderness Watch, George Nickas. He's a smart,
knowledgeable, passionate wilderness advocate who carries forth the vision of
Bill Worf and the other founders. I don’t always agree with George, but as far
as I know he doesn’t suffer from mental illness.
I mentioned this on Friedman’s Facebook page. A guy named
David Dreher, who has worked for the National Wildlife Federation and the PEW
Charitable Trust’s Campaign for America’s Wilderness, responded: “You have
valid points, but don’t pretend Wilderness Watch defends the Wilderness Act.
They’ve done more to erode and damage the Wilderness Act than any other group.”
I don’t pretend. I don't have to. The facts speak for
themselves. Here’s just a few of the things Wilderness Watch has done to defend
the Wilderness Act: They stopped the Park Service from allowing motorized
sightseeing tours in the Cumberland Island Wilderness; they protected the John
Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness from damage caused by overuse of commercial
pack strings; they spearheaded efforts to get illegally-built resorts removed from
the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness; they stopped the Park Service
from allowing off-road vehicle use on the fragile tundra in the Gates of the
Arctic Wilderness; they prevented 9-miles of road from being built into the
Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness, and they kept the Forest Service from building
129 helicopter landing zones within a dozen wilderness areas in Alaska.
I could go on.
They’ve done more than any other organization I know to
protect the ecological integrity of wilderness and ensure that wilderness
remains, as the Wilderness Act states, "an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who
does not remain."
I’m grateful for what the good folks at Wilderness Watch
have done and continue to do to keep wilderness wild. It's a good thing. It's
not a mental illness.
I renewed my membership to Wilderness Watch today; please
join me in supporting their important efforts. For more information, click
here: Support Wilderness Watch!