closure may be necessary due to concerns over human safety (a bear is feeding on a 

 carcass next to an active trail). Any closures will be site specific. 



Response Time to Conflicts: People suggested that 12 hours may be too long to 

 respond to some conflicts, and others stated that a response within 12 hours was 

 unworkable in some cases. FWP acknowledges both concerns and recognizes that 

 both situations can occur. The most rapid response possible is always in the best 

 interest of the management program and is the goal of the plan. 



Relocation of Problem Bears: It was requested that the plan provide information on 

 where problem bears would be relocated. Because these decisions require information 

 such as age/sex of the bear, current land uses, and understanding human activities, etc. 

 this type of detail is not possible in the plan. 



Coal Bed Methane: FWP acknowledges that this type of land management can affect 

 grizzly bears. FWP will seek to have the needs of the bear placed and considered in 

 every appropriate planning and permitting process as outlined in the management plan. 



Funding: It was requested that FWP document all funding and have in place all 

 commitments for ongoing funding needs. This is not possible because FWP and others 

 operate on annual budget cycles sensitive to changing needs and priorities. A review of 

 past funding indicates that the types of programs recommended in the plan receive 

 funding support. Some commenters suggested using a gas tax, or a portion of the bed 

 tax, to allow Americans to help support these efforts. FWP encourages those interested 

 in these programs to pursue additional funding opportunities with their state and/or 

 federal representatives. 



Local Control: Local control is viewed by some as an excuse to do "bad things" to ( 



habitat and bears. This is not the intent of this plan. While FWP has acknowledged the 

 national interest in the species and feels it provides long-term security of the population 

 to meet that need, those living and working in these areas need to be active participants 

 in all phases of plan development, implementation, and evaluation for it to be a success. 



i 



Damage to Bee Hives: There was support for re-evaluating the guidelines for damage 

 to beehives as recommend in the plan. 



Females with Cubs Monitoring: It was stated that the use of this monitoring 

 parameter was inappropriate. Current and ongoing research demonstrates that there is 

 value in using this parameter. However, it should be noted that our program does not 

 rely on it solely but will use a wide variety of information and data sources in program 

 implementation and evaluation. 



Definition of Socially Acceptable: The plan as developed provides for bear 

 expansion into areas that are biologically suitable and socially acceptable. Some 

 commenters wanted additional definition for this. There are some areas where the 

 presence of grizzly bears is unacceptable due to risks to people and/or bears (urban j 



114 



