Fish and Game commissioner responds

How can Mr. Peck (in a Dec. 13 letter to the editor) attack someone he doesn't know, has never met and has no more information on which to formulate his attack than what he reads in a newspaper? This is just wrong. I promise you, several of the quotes in another paper concerning my encounter with a grizzly were misrepresented in many ways.

With that said, no one respects our great bear more than me. My wife and I are fortunate enough to be in the backcountry quite frequently, and we cherish every moment. Those times are sometimes made even better with a sighting of a grizzly.

I even put my life in jeopardy when I hesitated in firing and tried to stop the advance of a 700- to 800-pound grizzly, hoping it was a bluff charge or that it would veer one way or another. I did this by yelling several times at the bear.

Not until he was only 10 feet away did I fire my rifle at him. Yelling, I now know, is not the preferred recommendation when one is involved in a close encounter with a grizzly; it was, however, the only response I had in again trying to get the bear not to eat me and/or for me to not have to fire.

Don't try and suggest that I don't care about the great bear, Mr. Peck.

Concerning bear spray, I have a great amount of written material showing that bear spray can be the best deterrent if you're involved in a bear encounter. Within a couple hours of being charged by this bear I was being interviewed by several journalists. In recounting my story of what had just happened, I told reporters that in this case bear spray would have been useless, and that I would worry that people carrying bear spray may have a false sense of security.

Both statements are true and well-intended. Both have also been blown out of proportion, just like Mr. Peck's suggestion that I'm out to undermine the effectiveness of bear spray to thousands of readers. That is just not true. I want everyone to be prepared, carry bear spray, carry a weapon, gain woods smarts and use common sense. But remember — none of these are fail-safe.

Concerning grizzly bear populations in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (which is the area including Glacier Park, the "Bob" and surrounding forests), most involved in the process concur that the bear has recovered concerning its current population numbers. All we are waiting for at this point is a few more time-consuming (and I'm told poorly funded) studies to complete the de-listing criteria.

One need only look back in our state's history concerning grizzly bear attitudes to see that hunting will make a difference. Not long ago when we could hunt grizzlies in Montana, there was a marked difference between a "Park bear" and a "wild/hunted bear."

The Park bear was typically more aggressive and tolerant of people in close proximity. Conversely, the wild/hunted bear was much more timid and wanted as much space as possible between itself and humans. One can also look at our current black bear population to see similar trends.

This change in attitude would not happen overnight, but it would happen. At that point, one would hope to see less confrontation, resulting in less opportunity for human suffering or death along with the same for our great bear.

I wish I had never gone hunting that day, and not because I got charged by a grizzly. I find it hard to believe that our peers find it enjoyable to attack our reputations with poor and limited information. Please don't let my situation stop you from venturing out into great outdoors. See you on the trail.

Vic Workman, of Whitefish, is a member of the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, but he wrote this letter on his own behalf, and the letter does not necessarily represent the views of the commission.