Lundquist: Policy change would prevent unbearable consequences

by Laura Lundquist | February 4, 2010 | Montana Kaimin

People constantly rave about how great it is to live in Missoula and so close to nature. But problems can arise when nature gets too close to people. Such problems require people to take fair and responsible action, which the City Council is considering. The policy would keep local bears away from people, benefiting both species of Missoula area residents.

City Council members will consider changing Missoula’s garbage-handling ordinance at their Feb. 8 meeting. The amendment would create a bear buffer zone, part of which swings along the eastern edge of the University of Montana.

All the neighborhoods in the zone abut open space, the neighborhoods of other species. Within the buffer zone, the city would require people to have bear-proof garbage containers – which they can rent for $10 a month – or keep their garbage inside until the day of trash pickup. If the council approves this simple plan, buffer-zone residents would have one year to comply.

This policy is long overdue. The council’s Urban Wildlife subcommittee has analyzed the bear issue for a year, but bears have been in and around Missoula for a long time, particularly in the Rattlesnake. In fact, they were here first, but only now are we trying to figure out how to live with them.

Bears are less likely to come near people if they can find adequate food in the wild. But as people continue to expand into the bears’ neighborhoods and as climate change reduces their food sources, the possibility of bear-human mingling increases. The least people can do is reduce one contributing factor. This is one instance when neighborhood segregation is favorable.

Just like college students, bears gravitate to places with free food. Over the years, bears have been drawn into Missoula’s outlying neighborhoods by bear delicacies: fruit trees and trash. The problem with bears is that, unlike students, they won’t leave once they’ve gotten into the habit of dumpster diving. Wildlife experts must either move a bear far away, which isn’t always successful, or, more likely, kill it. Hence, the warning, “A fed bear is a dead bear.”

People create the problem, but bears end up paying the price. This ordinance change is a wise and inexpensive way to reduce the human side of the equation.
And yet, some people are still protesting.

The Chamber of Commerce has tried to act as a speed bump. Gary Bakke, chamber spokesman, points to Seeley Lake’s volunteer bear program and wants to promote voluntary programs in Missoula rather than mandating behavior.

His argument has two flaws. The first is that Seeley Lake isn’t really a town, so it can’t make its own laws. If it could, it might mandate a bear policy. The second flaw is that voluntary programs don’t really work in this case. The program has to have everyone on board for it to be effective. If even just a few people ignore the plan, which they will if it has no teeth, the bears will come — to their doom, bringing danger to people in the process. Voluntary   participation works only with people who care.

The most discouraging reaction to the amendment when it was proposed in September came from UM. While not directly opposing the ordinance, Facility Services Director Hugh Jesse balked, questioning whether UM, a government institution, must follow an ordinance passed by the city. This quibbling came from a university that is the home of respected departments of environmental and wildlife studies and has a bear for a mascot.

The campus hasn’t had many bear incidents. But it definitely has abundant garbage sources, from overflowing garbage cans near the UC and dorms to the beer-flavored refuse that abounds after home football games.

Jesse recently said Facilities Services will comply, but his area doesn’t include University apartment buildings. Residence Life director Ron Brunnell said he has no plan and is waiting until the amendment passes. He complains that University housing isn’t like a campground that is easy to manage. So he’s not going to jump until he has to.

Developing a plan to better deal with garbage and replacing some receptacles means a few more dollars, but cost should not justify a lack of support for humane policy. And students should do their part when changes come about. When the City Council passes the bear buffer amendment, the University should proudly stand behind it. How could anyone cheer on the Grizzlies while potentially suckering bears in to their deaths?

Monte should be the only bear on campus.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

This story has been viewed 231 times.