Voices from the Flats – Bill Sherwonit on Bears, Bikers and Bad Ideas
Bill Sherwonit has been a freelance nature writer since 1992. His most recent book, “Changing Paths: Travels and Meditations in Alaska’s Arctic Wilderness” is now available HERE. For nearly a quarter-century, Bill has written extensively about wild lands and wildlife. Though he continues to journey into the wilderness each year, he has also paid increasing attention to the wild nature of his home landscape: Anchorage. He is the author of 12 books about Alaska, including three books about Denali, two about the Iditarod, and others about the Brooks Range and the necessity of wilderness, his evolving relationship with wild nature, Alaska’s bears and state parks.
********************
By Bill Sherwonit
It’s sometimes said that we humans have short memories. That certainly seems to be true when it comes to bear-human conflicts in the Anchorage area. How else to explain that planners with both Alaska State Parks and the municipality’s Department of Parks and Recreation have laid the groundwork for trails that could significantly increase the chance of bear-human encounters and maulings?
These plans have Rick Sinnott worried. I’m worried too. And every local resident who’s concerned about bear-human interactions should worry about plans to build new trails in areas heavily used by brown bears. As any bear-aware person knows, brown bears – the coastal cousins of grizzlies – pose a much greater danger to people than the more timid black bears that annually come into town.
Who can forget that brown bears attacked and mauled two Anchorage residents in Bicentennial Park in 2008 and charged at least a few other people on the east side of town that summer? Yet Parks and Rec has now adopted a “Far North Bicentennial Park Trail Improvement Plan” that includes two new trails near the South Fork of Campbell Creek – and the spot where the 2008 maulings occurred.
That adopted trail plan does a few things that trouble Sinnott. First, it relocates Rover’s Run – the trail along which the maulings occurred – 100 to 200 feet farther from the creek. Sinnott points out that such a move “will probably not make a significant difference in bear encounters compared with the existing location. We [wildlife managers at the Department of Fish and Game] continue to recommend a permanent or seasonal closure of Rover’s Run.” Yet city planners appear to rule out such closures, which in Sinnott’s thinking “is a very bad idea.”
The plan also establishes a nearby system of “single track trails” of the kind that mountain bikers love. To again quote Sinnott’s comments to Parks and Rec personnel: “I think this is a very bold move on someone’s part. Pick the location with the highest number of brown bear attacks and maulings in the Anchorage Bowl and build a new network of trails there. Not just any trails, but narrow trails with lots of turns that will cater to mountain bikers moving fast. I don’t need to remind you that Rover’s Run is the poster child for poor trail locations in the Anchorage Bowl. Why would anyone want to compound that bad decision?”
To make his point crystal clear, Sinnott added, “The South Fork of Campbell Creek has many of the salmon that spawn in the Anchorage Bowl and it will always attract lots of brown bears. I think the location chosen for the STA Phase II trails, near Rover’s Run, is a very bad idea. I also think that ruling out seasonal or temporary closures is a very bad idea. Finally, moving Rover’s Run a short distance from the creek is a very bad idea. . . .
“I anticipate that the three decisions will significantly increase the number of bear-human encounters, significantly increase the number of brown bear attacks, and significantly increase the number of people mauled in FNBP. Again, I strongly advise against these decisions. I hope these comments are clear enough.”
They seem pretty darn clear to me.
Given Sinnott’s strong opposition, a reasonable person has to wonder how the heck these specific trail plans were adopted. I certainly wondered. So I contacted Parks and Rec. And I got this explanation from Holly Spoth-Torres, the department’s park development and natural resource manager: “Adoption [of the FNBP Trail Improvement Plan] by the Parks and Recreation Commission is just one step in the approval process,” those steps ultimately leading to “a site plan review at the Urban Design Commission level, which would be the last step. . . . It is typical that as projects like this move through all the different steps, they are edited and changed slightly based on recommendations from the advisory and regulatory bodies.”
They may be changed “slightly”? That’s not encouraging if the trails need to be dropped.
Spoth-Torres continues: “Frankly, it isn’t my style to present something to a regulatory body like the UDC until agreeable solutions are reached by stakeholders and those who have been closely involved. Until I received Rick’s comments on the day of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting in August, I believed that consensus had been reached. Clearly that isn’t the case, we still have work to do on 2 – 3 projects included in the plan.”
It’s hard to know why Spoth-Torres or anyone else involved in the plan believed consensus had been reached, because all along Sinnott had “strongly recommended” against trails in the South Fork Campbell Creek corridor. In fact Sinnott told me that he’d essentially been blindsided by the adopted plan.
I hope and pray that the process Spoth-Torres describes will indeed allow someone in a position of authority – someone with common sense – to follow Sinnott’s recommendations concerning the proposed trails discussed here. There are plenty of places to put trails in local parks without increasing the likelihood of bear-human encounters, bear attacks, and maulings.
The second bad trail idea has already been reported in the Anchorage Daily News by Mike Campbell (“Cameras reveal fault in Eagle River trail plan”), so I needn’t go into detail here. But because Alaska State Parks is currently taking comments on its new Draft Chugach State Park Trail Management Plan, I urge DNR planners and park managers to please, please heed Sinnott’s advice and not put a trail through a known brown bear corridor. And I encourage members of the public who are submitting comments to oppose the proposed trail segment that runs through Eagle River Canyon between the Glenn Highway and Briggs Bridge. As Sinnott notes, “Overall I like the idea of new trails in the park, but not in Eagle River Canyon. Bears cannot afford to avoid the area, because it is one of the few ways to cross the Glenn without weaving through six lanes of traffic and because the king salmon in Meadow Creek will continue to attract bears . . .”
Folks who wonder if a trail here would really pose a danger should consider that the third Anchorage-area person to be attacked by a brown bear in 2008 was mauled in this very canyon, along Meadow Creek, about 100 yards from the proposed trailhead.
Like Sinnott, I wonder what the heck planners are thinking, to propose new trails in areas where brown bears are known to congregate in summer. This makes no sense at all, if the goal is to minimize bear-human conflicts and increase public safety. Again, Sinnott: “Anchorage already has two trails that are closed for part of every summer to avoid maulings [Rovers Run since 2008, and the Albert Loop Trail near the Eagle River Nature Center]. Do we want to build more trails in the few remaining areas where bear maulings are highly likely if human use is greatly increased?”
Is there some sort of requirement that says politicians in Anchorage must be dropped on their heads before age 2? What the heck are these people thinking? Bears win every encounter. Logic says avoid encounters. End of rant.
Man vs. Bear…..bear wins every time.
Although I don’t live in Alaska, I have done lots of backpacking in the Rockies, mostly in my 20′s (I’m in my late 50′s now) and I was taught by a master. You hang your food up in a tree hundreds of yards away from where you are sleeping. Make sure there are no crumbs left out and clean sweep everything!! Lock down tight.
In addition, never, ever go on the trails while menstruating and always wear bells in your shoelaces.
The concerns listed here..are absolutely valid! Why..would any..propose the curr. relocations/locations? Are there bus stops near..so an increase in ridership..is considered a ‘plus’? Are there commercial stores/establishments..that..are ..’in the area’..coming/going..so that a possible ..uptick..in sales or foot traffic..is viewed by some..as a worthy reason for..foolhardy trail placement? Who will stand to benefit? If all else fails..someone..with private property close to the trail starts/ends..please keep a sign up..with the numerical sightings/encounters..and..disasters..listed..daily. It would be nice if the trails were not sited where they seem bound to put them..but..there are other factors..at work. Digging..WILL..make those other reasons..show up. Dig..people..DIG!! I know my animal trails here..and up in the McKenzie River drainage..by heart..so I know where..I may be safer..and where..more at hazard. You..in your area..must think..ahead of ANYeconomic-curve..to ..resite..those trails. Steaming bear scat..has never been one of my ‘happy times’..when hiking..nor..bodyparts.
I read today the caribou herds are deceasing in number, largely due to various effects of climate warming. (Not because of wolves, Sarah.)
Caribou are a source of food for bear as well. As natural food sources decline bear will have no choice but to expand their food choices, to us, our pets, our live stock, and so forth.
As always, our fix will be to slaughter bears and wolves, also too.
And of course since natural predation tends to remove the least robust in a population (maybe this is the Republican’s excuse on health care. They want to strengthen the American gene pool, and progress out evolution.) the removal of those natural culling tendencies may actually be slowing the rise of genetic traits that are most likely to facilitate caribou surviving in a warmer climate.
Do the people who go on those trails have health insurance or is this some kind of a death panel?
@nsmfm CA
Still ROLFLMAO
BBHounds Says: October 5th, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Glad to be of service!
SPEAK UP
Comment on the Far North Bicentennial Park Trail Improvement Plan at http://www.muni.org/Departments/parks/Pages/FNBPTrailsPlanComments.aspx – view the plan at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/parks/Pages/FNBPTrailsPlan.aspx
Comments on the Draft Chugach State Park Trail Management Plan are due by 5:00 on October 16th, 2009. Send your comments to Monica Alvarez at monica.alvarez@alaska.gov – view the plan at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/units/chugach/planning.htm
Good one, nswfm CA!! lol. But we have to remember to die fast… if we do not have health insurance.
Well..in that case..’bleeding-out’..is..fairly swift…
Of course bear attacks/maulings are a primary concern….. but behind that issue is what will happen to the bears if the attacks accelerate if these questionable trails are constructed. Will the bears be tried in the court of public hysteria?…. If so, how long before the bears are killed in deference to those humans using the man made trails? I suspect the answers are “Yes” and “Not long.”
2 Goalie in NM Says: October 5th, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Man vs. Bear…..bear wins every time.
___________
In case people need a reminder to steer clear of large clawed aminals, a woman was killed by her “pet” bear in a small town just northeast of Allentown, pennsyltucky, last night.
Last time i checked this was alaska,supposed land of the last frontier.Sorry but the truth is we’re all NIMBY’d up.Another urban legend dead,this one died sometime in the early ’90′s.
Whats wrong with being responsible for our OWN risks.When I was a teenager growing up in Valdez,I spent MANY an adventurous walk down black bear trails behind the Mineral Creek Flats.Sometimes with a sidearm,sometimes not.But always with my trusty St Bernard,”Broom Hilda”.There was/arent any/few trails,the alders so completely impenatrible(sp?)
The idea that we need to be saved from ourselves is very “lower 48.”
Common sense sez perhaps its not wise to take an after work jog around a salmon stream almost anywhere in alaska east of Unimak island in july/august.
ON the contrary,want to get INTUNED with nature,take a stroll down a bear trail.
ak
Bear death panels at work here along with stupid human tricks. No need for health insurance reform. It works well for those with no fear.
Just wanted to point out that more Anchorage trail users have been mauled by other human beings than by bears. There are both crabby grizzlies and bad people out there. It is hard to understand how trail planning would not involve both ADF&G and the Anchorage Police Department.
What a waste of time and tax dollars, find out whose bright idea this was, find out who is for it and get them out of this type process. They are obviously not qualified for the job. A brain dead republican is my guess. Are these people paid to make plans like this?
Put the time and resources to better use. Good grief, why ask for trouble. And if they do go ahead with this, if someone gets hurt, a law suit should follow. Do they want that, eh?
Appears to me that they want an excuse for slaughtering bears.
Thank – you Mr. Sherwonit.
Wow. As a Park Planner, this is something I can totally relate too.
Don’t be too hard on the local Parks and Rec. There is always more to thes tory and many times they are directed to intiate projects that are in direct response to publice requests. They are almost always aware of the pros and cons of the projects proposed. The public comment period is exactly the right time to register the thoughts of the public. It sounds to me like a local mountian bike or trail group has gotten the ear of the local commissioner. If this is really an inappropriate idea, then the public sentiment will get changes made as needed. BTW evey group tends to exagerate a bit to get their point across…..just sayin’
I can understand re-doing the trails. But why leave a blood trail? People will be hurt; then alot of folks will be on the trail with their shot guns to kill the bears and hopefully, not inadvertently, harm another human.