4/20/08

Bear Lake Doesn't Need Any More Bears

For a final in one of my classes, I have agreed to write an article instead of taking a test. Any topic. When I briefly thought about the subject that I wanted to investigate and write about, only one thing came to mind: Black Bear Mountain. I have heard so many rumors that I thought it would be a good way to dig to the bottom of the rubble and come up with the truth. But I think the truth might be a little too much to handle.
Next step was to pick people to interview. My father seemed like a good person to question; with 30 plus years with the Forest Service and working directly with the area involved, he would be perfect. Today I interviewed my dad, asking him several questions, mostly about the proposed area and what would be the possible effects to the environment. As you can expect, my father is not in favor of the idea. I'll give you a few reasons why:
1. Part of the proposed area sneaks its way into the Paris Peak Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). An IRA is an area that is 5000 acres or larger that is designated as roadless. Simply put, an area that does not have any roads that have been constructed and/or maintained. The Forest Service has been putting more value on roadless areas, because they are often seen as sanctuaries for certain animals and plant species.
2. Black Bear Mountain basically wants to swap land with the USDA Forest Service, allowing these areas in Bear Lake to become private. This means that if they acquire this land on the Worm Creek IRA and the Paris Peak IRA that these areas will no longer be public land administered by the Forest Service. Black Bear Mountain will have complete control over the land and can do anything they want with it. They offer to swap land that they own somewhere else (such as in Island Park) with the land in Bear Lake, and in turn give the land in Island Park over to the Forest Service.
3. Part of the Worm Creek IRA is identified as deer and elk winter range critical. The creeping of the cabins by the lake northward only means less and less areas for these animals to survive. Taking away more critical land for them only means more damage. Among other possible environmental impacts include: loss of cattle grazing in the summer, impacts in important grouse populations, and impacts on creeks and fish populations.
Environmentally speaking, these are pretty important arguments.
And that's as far as I've gotten and I'm pretty opposed to the idea myself.
For so many years I would sit in my front window and just stare at Paris Peak and the surrounding mountains. I don't even want to imagine the scar of a ski resort cutting across the areas around and perhaps on the mountain itself. Many may claim all the economic benefits of such a resort, but is it worth it? Aren't there other ways to build the economy? I was searching for anything I could find on the resort when I stumbled across this page. The article by Kate Carpenter was so upsetting I could barely make it through half of it. Ski lifts? Golf courses? A water park? A ZIP LINE?

I can't help but think that the developers of this resort are being so selfish and greedy.  Is paying the environmental bill worth it to destroy such a gorgeous area? Why can't a beautiful area be left untouched and why do people feel the need to take over everything? Brad Auger, a developer for Black Bear Mountain proudly claims (according to this site), "There is nothing that we are going to do here that's going to impact anything in a negative way." 
I think he should try telling that to the hundreds of deer and elk who live there in the winter. I think he should try telling that to the grouse that call that area their home. Most of all, I think he should try telling the people of Bear Lake that one of their most beautiful mountains will never be the same again. And it is all for the sake of someone wanting to be rich.
Granted, the Forest Service has yet to accept or deny this proposal for the swapping of land, but I sincerely hope it doesn't happen. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. The developers of Black Bear Mountain will probably come and go, developing other lands, but the people of Bear Lake will be the ones who will wake up every morning to such a black reality.

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

The state land board is probably going to deny the 4 thousand state acres that they want. Cant speak for the feds. I have no problems with them building houses on dry canyon but they cant have my forest. Good job Candice!!!