Alternative 2: The goal is to allow grizzly bears to expand from their current range in north Idaho and northwestern Montana southward into central Idaho and western Montana, and to recolonize the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE). The ultimate goal is natural recovery of grizzly bears in the BE.

This alternative received little attention when compared to the others. As pointed out by the , Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor at the time, ?Most of the discussions have centered around how bears will be reintroduced, not if they will be reintroduced. It does not appear that the NO Action alternative has received the same considerations as the other alternatives.@

The majority of the respondents who support Alternative 2 feel the time frame of natural recovery would allow everyone to adjust to the presence of bears; therefore reducing bear-human conflicts. Many state that if left alone in the proper habitat , the existing bear population would recover. A popular reason to support this alternative is its low cost. Full protection under the Endangered Species Act is also a favorite argument from many respondents. This means habitat protection and less liberal ?take@ provisions.

Opponents of Alternative 2 feel natural recovery wouldn't happen because it would rely on bears migrating from other ecosystems, and there are no management practices to encourage migration. Some feel this Alternative is an attempt by the federal government to remove the people from public lands or to remove private property rights under the authority of the ESA. Many persons feel the time frame in Alternative 2 is too long. The threat of grizzly bears to human safety is a recurring concern.

Those suggesting modifications to Alternative 2 like the idea of natural recovery, managing corridors between the Cabinet-Yaak and the Bitterroot ecosystem, and oversite of the Citizen Management Committee.

Cost

Many people comment on the cost of the reintroduction program, and feel Alternative 2 would be the least expensive and a better use of tax dollars.

Some respondents question why this EIS process is taking place, there are already grizzly bears in the Bitterroots, and they should be left alone to recover if there is suitable habitat.

A number of individuals feel threatened with any possibility of having grizzly bears in the BE, but still feel that Alternative 2 is the best approach to the project. This may be a misinterpretation of the information presented in the DEIS by the public. Some people claim the decision has already been made to recover bears in the BE, so they voice support for the alternative that will be the least restrictive on their lives.

Many respondents feel the time frame outlined in Alternative 2 is too long. They are concerned that without direct manipulation of bears, bears would not find their way back to the Bitterroots.

A frequent concern expressed by respondents is this alternative does not protect enough habitat for a viable population nor does it call for any type of linkage zone consideration. Without the linkage zones, people feel that the grizzly bear will not be able to recover in the BE.

Some comments express concerns that this alternative is an attempt by the federal government to limit local use of public lands. There is a strong distrust of the federal government and the Fish and Wildlife Service. People do not want the FWS to continue with Section 7 consultation.

Many people suggest this alternative would be more acceptable by adding provisions for linkage zones and habitat management.

Several people suggest grizzly bears should be allowed to recover naturally while being managed by the Citizen Management Committee as outlined in Alternative 1.