Pacific Northwest Trail protest

[Diane Pinkers]

I’m all for trails. Yet, should every trail be approved? I’m guessing there’s a re-route possible to make things right, but have no knowledge of the area to be sure.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bass-grizzlies-pacific-northwest-trail-20180304-story.html%3foutputType=amp#ampshare=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bass-grizzlies-pacific-northwest-trail-20180304-story.html

[Jerry Adams]

“We’ve contracted on our own for an independent environmental analysis of the proposed route. And we’ve suggested, over and over, more than one equally wild and wonderful scenic route for the trail.”

I’m a bit skeptical that humans walking through the area would be that much of a threat, but worth studying, and if there’s another route that makes sense.

They said the population of bears is cut off from other grizzlies.  That is a sure death sentence for them, but it will take a while.  They should figure out how to provide a connection to other bears.  You’d think that would be possible in Montana.

[HkNewman]

With that few grizz remaining and protection likely to get skimpier, one could make the case to reroute the trail. In the future if the grizz disappear just make a small loop within the trail itself, like a portion of the CT does.

As long as the trail stays in the PNW, it should be ok.  It doesn’t have a defining feature like the PCT does trying to stay somewhat up with Crest in its name (a feature a thru-hiker nicknamed “Vertigo” failed to appreciate when I hiked the PCT..)

[Jeff K]

Hey folks,

This is Jeff Kish, Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Trail Association (PNTA).  I’m also a member of the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council, and a PNT thru-hiker.

This is the latest of a series of pieces (same story, new publication) that Rick Bass has been writing about the PNT since 2016.

This piece, like the others that came before it, contains so many fallacies, that a comprehensive response would take volumes (as you’ll soon see) – a classic debate tactic called the “gish gallop.”

“Gish gallop is a term for a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one’s opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place. The technique wastes an opponent’s time and may cast doubt on the opponent’s debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially, if no independent fact-checking is involved, or, if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.”

We’re not in a traditional debate, so the only limitations on my response are those of the reader’s attention span – I hope you’ll try to stay with me.

Lets not bury the lede any further. The key points that I think need to be addressed here are 1) Does the congressionally designated route of the PNT pose a threat to grizzly bear recovery in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem?  And 2) What role does the PNTA actually play in all this?

To the first point: The truth is probably that no one knows for sure, but in the 40 years that people have been thru-hiking the PNT, there hasn’t been any recorded evidence that it has.  Further, the experts who are charged with managing grizzly bear recovery in this ecosystem don’t believe that it does, and don’t believe there’s a compelling need to reroute the PNT away from the congressional route as a result.

From a more broad perspective, there is a decent amount of objective, peer-reviewed science out there that suggests primitive non-motorized recreation not only does not pose a threat to grizzly bear recovery, but in some ways, may actually help it along.  For instance, you might like to read “Impacts of Human Recreation on Brown Bears (Ursus arctos): A Review and New Management Tool (2016)”

In the report, researchers analyzed 149 peer-reviewed articles and reports related to the subject (many of which were specifically focused on interior populations of grizzly bears, including those in northwest Montana) and then surveyed expert grizzly biologists who were identified from those works.  The research indicated that non-motorized trails and hiking were not only very low impact, but 100% of the experts surveyed agreed that hiking trails had no adverse impact on grizzly reproductive rates, 87% agreed that hiking had no adverse impact on grizzly survival rates, and 77% agreed that in many cases these low-impact recreation types actually BENEFITED grizzly populations in a variety of ways.

From the study: “The potential benefits to bears as a result of recreational activities were (presented by the of Delphi Survey Experts): 1) an increase in conservation or support for bears and habitat through an improved understanding and appreciation of bears (62%); 2) economic benefits with an increase in revenue for local economies (23%); 3) access to prime habitat by females with cubs and subadults where dominant bears avoid humans (23%); 4) areas used for bear-viewing may be protected from bear hunting (15%); 5) enhancement of fish populations for recreational angling may increase the food supply for bears (8%); and 6) the construction of hiking and biking trails open up easy travel paths for bears (8%).”

Of course not all of those benefits would necessarily apply in the cabinet-yaak, but a few stand out to me.

The “increase in conservation” point resonates.  In 1974, conservationist Harvey Manning wrote a letter in support of designating the Pacific Northwest Trail as a National Scenic Trail, which was published in Backpacker Magazine (#7).  In it, he said: “As for the proposed national scenic trail from the Rockies to the sea, some parts are already protected in national parks and wilderness areas. These sections are mainly famous and can not be harmed by formal status.  But other parts are wide open to road building, logging, mining, subdivision, and every other kind of mangling. This is the evil that a national trail could help dispel. Areas presently little known [except to the wreckers] could survive to be cherished by the nation.”

Year after year, I’ve witnessed the transformation of hikers who fundamentally change through their experiences on long trails.  It’s made me a firm believer of this: People are most likely to stand up for something if they love it. People are more likely to love something if they know it.  People are more likely to know something, if they’ve experienced it. As Harvey (and even Rick Bass himself) suggests – the Yaak is no secret to development and extractive industry.  If we keep these places a secret from everyone else, who will stand up for them?

The third point from the study above is also pretty interesting, and appears to have solid science to back it.  Human caused displacement can actually benefit population recovery by protecting cubs and sub-adults from dominant males, which results in more bears living long enough to reproduce.

The good news is that progress is being made to study the impacts of recreation on the cabinet-yaak ecosystem, and the debate about the future of the trail should be less speculative as new data comes out.

Now, onto the next topic:  How is the PNTA involved? What power/authority do we have over the route of the PNT across northwest Montana?  What’s our position on this issue?

The short answer is that the PNTA does not have any authority to change the route of the PNT through Montana, and does not have the power to compel the Forest Service to change it either.  Nor have we tried.  Further, while we’ve been portrayed as careless conquistadors with a “yaak or bust” mindset by Rick Bass, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single example of any representative of our organization taking this stance.

The stance that I HAVE taken personally, and expressed directly to Rick’s staff at Yaak Valley Forest Council, is “if objective science shows that the designated route of PNT poses an unmitigable threat to the recovery of Yaak grizzlies, I’d support a reroute as much as you do.”

Where I have been more firm is in the position that the trail shouldn’t be moved without a compelling need to do so.  That’s not only my opinion, but also a legal requirement defined in the national trails system act. To date, the local land managers, including expert bear biologists, do not agree with Rick Bass or his staff that the PNT poses a threat to grizzly recovery.

Wherever the PNT ends up, we’ll do everything that we can to help the Forest Service take care of it, as well as everything that we can to make sure that hikers can enjoy it responsibly.  Right now, it’s where congress designated it in 2009; on trails and roads that existed in the Yaak for decades before Ron Strickland conceived the idea of the Pacific Northwest Trail.

I’d encourage you to consider this thread a PNT “AMA” – if you have any questions or concerns about the PNT and the Yaak, threatened and endangered species, or anything else, I’ll answer them the best I can.

Thanks for reading!

[Alex H]

Thank you Jeff for a really thorough and sound response.

[Diane Pinkers]

Yes, thank you, Jeff.  That’s the kind of response that needs to be heard in support of trails.

[Jerry Adams]

Thanks.  That’s pretty good.  Gish gallup???  A creationist?  I would have thought it was a global warming denier term…  The technique is pretty applicable to many issues these days.  I’ll just assume Rick Bass is well intentioned : )

I see a lot of black bear poop on trails I walk on.  And occasionally the bears that create that.  Much more than off trail.  It’s pretty clear to me bears use trails to get around so it makes sense that that would be beneficial like your #6 above.

[Author]

Posts