• 09-25-2008
    Queen Bee
    Your Comments Very, Very Important
    The Municipality of Anchorage Parks & Recreation Department is putting the finishing touches on the Far North Bicentennial Park Trails Plan. One omission from the most recent version of the plan is Phase II of the Hillside Singletrack Project. This second phase is located on the north side of Campbell Airstrip Road and just below Stuckagain Heights neighborhood.

    As a bit of background, the Basher Community Council passed a resolution unanimously in support of Phase II of the project. It also received extensive multi-agency review through the Coastal Zone Management Program and an Environmental Checklist. This occurred before this summerís problems with the bears reached a critical point.

    The reason given for the removal of the project was the need to maintain wildlife corridors. I can understand that the wildlife issue deserves more thoughtful discussion and the development of a management plan. Removing Phase II of the project essentially eliminates the hope for any future trail project in this area. At least if the project is in the plan, it could conceivably happen at some point in the near or distant future. If itís not in the plan, any proposal could be turned down simply on the basis that ďit isnít consistent with the Trails Plan.Ē

    Parks & Rec has to balance a lot of competing issues in the park. Singletrack concerns are just one of them. There are many difficult choices to be made. It would be worth your time to visit the Trails Plan website and click on the link to give your individual opinion. There are a lot of supporting materials available on the website as well. http://www.muni.org/parks/FNBPTrailsPlanDocs.cfm. THE DEADLINE IS OCT. 6TH.
  • 09-29-2008
    brian_404
    About posting your comments on the up coming project. I'd like to post, but what do I say? I do not know all of the trail names and locations... I just ride... It's just going to be blah, blah, blah... I'm not good at putting my concerns into words...
    :madman:
    Do you have a partition?
  • 09-29-2008
    Queen Bee
    More Info
    Really, what is needed now is to request that Phase II be put back into the draft trails plan. The plan is still a draft. A lot of discussion has to happen in public forums, but the project can't really be debated unless the proposal is in the plan. You could simply say, "Hey Guys, Please put Phase II of the singletrack project back into the draft trails plan so that it can continue through the public process." Or something to that effect.

    Here is the timeline:

    October 6, 2008
    Comments Due on the above review documents http://apps.amicro.biz/feedback/dowl/

    December, 2008
    Complete Draft Plan Available for Review

    January, 2008
    Stakeholder Follow-up Meetings
    Steering Committee Meeting
    Parks & Recreation Commission Review & Public Hearing (January 8, 2009)

    Spring 09 Final Trail Improvement Plan Review by the Urban Design Commission
  • 09-29-2008
    sean salach
    done.

    brian, just try to be clear and concise. don't make it sound like a rant, make it sound like you appreciate what they've done so far and that you, as a member of the community would really like for it to go through. make sure you mention exactly what you're talking about.
  • 09-29-2008
    sean salach
    the comments aren't available for review yet, but this is what i wrote:

    I'm writing in regards to the omittance of Phase II of the Hillside Singletrack Plan from your forthcoming Trails Plan for FNBP. As a former Parks and Recreation worker(Jefferson Township, NJ), I understand the pressures put on a management agency to serve both the community and the environment. I realize that you are receiving empassioned input from all sides, and that it can get a little daunting, so I'll keep it short. I urge you to INCLUDE Phase II in your Trails Plan.

    Animals don't avoid trails. especially in an area of the country with such thick vegetation during the greener months. They cross trails. They cross roads. They don't care about corridors. If the goal is to maintain a healthy bear population alongside and urban center. Attacks are inevitable no matter what the layout of the trails.

    At that point, where we have conceded to an 'accepted risk', we need to move forward and figure out how to best serve the community. An increase in well built trails serves everyone. Reduced sedimentation in the rivers, improved trail experience due to a more stable trail surface and improved user experience due to reduced user conflict are only the beginning.

    Please reconsider, please make the right decision for all parties involved and include Phase II of the Hillside Singletrack Project in your Trail Management Plan. You can't lose!

    Thank You.


    *reading back on that now, while posting this to mtbr, i made a few grammatical and spelling errors. i tried to check everything, but oh well....
  • 09-30-2008
    thirstywork
    I just found out today that the Service High running team has to bus their kids to another location to train because the Muni and ASD don't think it's safe to use their own back yard. This is WAY out of control. We have not plopped ourselves down in the middle of ANWR. Rover's Run (where the bear attacks occured) is within a few miles of the busiest intersection in the state. It's time to take back the Hillside and get our lives back. There is plenty of room for the bears to roam ELSEWHERE. 36+ grizzly bears in the area is way too many. I've been here since 1970 and up until 2 years ago, I'd yet to see a bear on the Hillside. It's time to lean on F&G for a moose and bear hunt in the Bowl and also to quit stocking Campbell Crk with salmon. The area used in phase ll was ok'd for use before the maulings happened. Why do we have to give up our lifestyle because of this? Will someone have to die before F&G wakes up? The park sees more than 1,000,000 users each year. I'm not giving up my lifestyle (it's why I live here) and I urge all of you to get involved. Let's get phase ll back in the plan. If not, we've lost it for good. Post your comments and let yourselves be heard.
  • 09-30-2008
    William D
    Thirsty-that's a very impassioned entry. Really good; you nailed it. I think you should edit it for length and submit it to the ADN letters to the editor. i almost guarantee they will run it.
  • 09-30-2008
    Queen Bee
    Seems that a lot of the problem is intradepartmental entrenchment. Doesn't look like much will change from the bottom up, so a top down strategy is probably what's needed. The Southcentral Region supervisor is Grant Hilderbrand ([email protected]), but he's unlikely to do anything unless Commissioner Denby Lloyd ([email protected]) tells him to do something, but Commissioner Lloyd is unlikely to do something because his boss, Sarah Palin, is off doing interviews with Katie Couric.

    It's interesting how the "game" side of things can launch a predator control program in the bush to ensure a healthy moose population, but the same "game" side of things can't do predator control to ensure a healthy human population in Anchorage.
  • 10-01-2008
    sean salach
    when i used to work for municipal government, on the bottom side of that ladder, it was pretty clearly apparent that the best way for a small group of citizens to get something done was to, litterally, complain to the mayor. if he get's enough complaints, he will get sick of it really quickly, and put pressure on those under him(who work for him) to do whatever it takes to shut the complainers up. this happens all the time.

    http://www.muni.org/mayor/
  • 10-01-2008
    Valhalla
    There is no simple solution that Grant Hildebrand or Rick Sinnott are going to be able to fix with a swipe of the pen, and we are not going to be "taking back" the Hillside for 2 reasons. It is not ours to take and we will not be able to eliminate bears and moose in the chugach range from coming into town until there is no longer a reason for them to be here. We like the hillside for some of the same reasons the critters do. Eliminate accessible garbage, fish runs, ornamental shrubs, vegetative cover and denning habitat and we may reduce some of the attractors.

    The safety risks are far too risky (at least in the front range) to open up a bear hunt. I would rather alter my behavior around a healthy bear than try to deal with a gut shot bear in my backyard, near a school or wandering the trails so that the service cross country can train there. Predator management activities temporarily reduces a population for a specific response. You guys are calling for an elimination or a constant culling which at the moment is unrealistic. ADFG manages the wildlife not the land. The pressure for recent predator management for the most part came from Juneau and from sport hunting lobbyists' influence on the legislature and the Board of Game not Fish and Game. And last time I check the human population is overly healthy in Anchorage. What is not healthy, however, is how we act when we are on trails. We have been fortunate in the past to have the access to the trails without problems (mtb in brown bear country walks a fine line to begin with), but this is still Alaska and this is still the urban wilderness interface. The proximity of Rovers to Tudor and Lake Otis does not influence bear activity on the hillside. What does is the creek, the fish, and the habitat connectivity to the entire Chugach range. As we continue to encroach and push wilderness back there will inevitably be encounters until the day that we have conquered nature in this city like down south. Those 1,000,000 users help to create this problem. Thirsty, your lifestyle comes with some stipulations and this is one of them. Sorry it wasn't an issue in 1970 when the population was 120,000.

    As far as the fish - you need to talk to the muni on that one. They are the ones pushing for world class urban fishery through political pressure and tourism lobbyists in Juneau. Begich is the champion for the salmon runs and a no regulation approach to garbage.This includes taking down dams that will allow more fish to spawn further upstream- hence attracting more bears to town.

    I am all about the trails and the new ones with the understanding that it may have consequences if my behavior is not appropriate in those areas at certain times of the year. I study how wildlife use trails and respond to human activity for a living. If the argument for halting construction of Phase II is because of the need to maintain the connectivity of wildlife corridors, then I am in complete disagreement with the muni. I do not see connectivity as being an issue in Anchorage, but if it is about providing corridors where wildlife have an opportunity to move around humans, limiting encounters - then i need to do some more thinking on this one.

    I am happy to champion new trail construction, but the elimination of bears on the Hillside is not going to happen anytime in the distant future.
  • 10-01-2008
    ickyickyptngzutboing
    Thirsty, great post and I share the same sentiments as I've had throughout the whole summer. I don't want to get too far into this argument, but I'll repeat what I had posted earlier in the summer.

    1 - Anchorage is not what it used to be. It's bigger, it's expanded, and I think the city needs to adjust it's perception of urban wildlife. Letting a bear population grow without control within the largest urban center of the state is careless and reckless. I'm not originally from up here, so maybe I don't see why some argue for brown bears to live uninhibited in the city. Maybe I'm just a stupid 'Lower-48er', but I don't take too kindly to having brown bears as my neighbor.

    2 - Kincaid PARK. Far North Bicentennial PARK. Central PARK. What do these all have in common? A definition of the work 'park':
    An area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and managed by a city, state, or nation.
    Not to be confused with another similar idea: Wildlife Refuge
    An area designated for the protection of wild animals, within which hunting and fishing are either prohibited or strictly controlled.
    These are areas that the city set aside for recreation of people. Either they need to change the status from park to wildlife refuge, or they need to make the land they advocate for public use safe for those wanting to use it.

    For the people in Anchorage, get over it, Anchorage is not the urban wildlife center that it apparently used to be. Control the bear population--will it really hurt to control a bear population in 0.017% of the entire state of Alaska (size of the Anchorage Bowl)?
  • 10-01-2008
    thirstywork
    [QUOTE=Valhalla]There is no simple solution that Grant Hildebrand or Rick Sinnott are going to be able to fix with a swipe of the pen, and we are not going to be "taking back" the Hillside for 2 reasons. It is not ours to take and we will not be able to eliminate bears and moose in the chugach range from coming into town until there is no longer a reason for them to be here. We like the hillside for some of the same reasons the critters do. Eliminate accessible garbage, fish runs, ornamental shrubs, vegetative cover and denning habitat and we may reduce some of the attractors."


    I disagree. Funny thing is I came up with the exact same argument as Icky about the difference between a Park and a Wildlife Refuge before I read his post. Well done Danny. We can take back Hillside because it is every bit as much "ours" as it is "theirs." When I say "take back," I mean begin to use the park again as we always have. I continued to use the park after the maulings and many times I was the only one there. It didn't matter what time or what day, it was a ghost town. We don't need to eliminate the moose or the bears or the fish, just reduce their population together.

    "The safety risks are far too risky (at least in the front range) to open up a bear hunt. I would rather alter my behavior around a healthy bear than try to deal with a gut shot bear in my backyard, near a school or wandering the trails so that the service cross country can train there."

    The idea is that we all go back into the park, not just so the Service High XC team can run. I never thought it would go this far, that's the only reason I pointed it out. The fact is, everyone in charge is covering their a$$, and passing the buck. Closing the park is not going to make the problem go away, and it IS a problem. If predator management get's us another 28 years of incident free recreation, I'm in. I know of at least six people packing heat now on their rides. Is that safer than eliminating a handful of bears?
    I can appreciate your expertise in this field, and would love to have a beer over the topic to learn more about F&G. I know you ride, and use the park, so we have the same goal in the end.
  • 10-02-2008
    Valhalla
    I guess what this may come down to is the perception of how many bears are we talking about.The population of bears did not explode in the Chugach over the last four years - just the number of habituated bears. And why are there more habituated bears? Why are they more tolerant of humans? What are the attractants that are bringing the bears in? How much noise is considered adequate to avoid surprise encounters (which is exactly what happen with every case this summer) on the trail? The WOMBATS were out on the trails last night and I encountered them twice - never heard them once.

    The unofficial perspective of ADFG biologists is that there have been a couple of problem bears this summer not a bear population explosion. One of those problem bears, a sow including her offspring, was removed. Any new encounters since then?? How many bears did you see out on the trail this summer?? A sow with 2 cubs can put down a lot of poop on many different trails in very little time. I, however, only saw the one sow with cubs who no longer exists.

    The Board of Game does not have the power to initiate predator management on behalf of personal safety. Predator management is a tool used only to help wildlife populations that have fallen to critical levels. That mandate is something that is set by the legislature so predator management in the front range cannot come from that avenue for those reasons. If we want it changed we need to start lobbying our legislators. If problem animals exist, they are dealt with on a case by case basis by Fish and Game which is how it has been handled.

    People were irritated by the trail closure this summer. If there was a hunt on the Hillside for bears (there is a limited one for moose now) many areas would then be closed in May and August. Do you want people running up and down the Hillside firing off their .338s that have the potential of traveling 4000 meters? And I don't want gut shot bears running around the Hillside either -that is a far worse situation than we have now.

    Thirsty, Fish and Game has repeatedly encouraged use on all trails with the exception of Rover's run (closed by the Muni). Service coaches have told ADFG that they have not changed training habits and run with their athletes in large groups carrying bear spray. The risk on trails away from Rovers in September and October is no different than it has been in the last year (that is the official stance). It is pretty obvious that these areas are not being managed for wildlife and they are a far cry from refuges. There is no hunting on the Hillside because of the human safety concern. If there were no bears around town then the moose population would explode and most agree that moose are more of safety concern than bears. Also those effects would be seen all over Anchorage not just in the parks.

    I also don't see anything written on the plans for review. I see some maps with presence of existing trails and another with proposed trails. I don't see where the exclusion is listed and the rationale for the exclusion(s). I want to comment but am I missing some info?

    Has STA ever invited ADFG to one of their meetings to discuss thess issues and their rationale? I know Janice has talked with biologists during the proposal/planning stages, but has she shared their concerns with the broader membership and community?

    Icky - the population isn't the issue- it is individual bears and how you are able to manage in a heavily human populated area. We can't adopt the Alaskan kill em if we can't live with them mentality here - it is far more complicated.
  • 10-02-2008
    thirstywork
    Great post Valhalla. I like hearing ADFG's perspective as there are always (at least) two sides to the story. I have to wonder after Sean Farley's research-how is it that it's ok to have 36+ grizzly bears living in such close proximity to town? Think about this for a moment. I have been bear hunting before. I've glassed for days and not seen a bear, yet we have 36+ living within a few miles of town. From my understanding, the average grizzly poulation is one per 100 sq. miles. I don't know how many bears are ok, I'm not Columbo, but I do know currently it's not a good balance.
    I believe there were no more incidents because nobody was using the park after the second mauling.
    I wasn't irritated with the closure, I was irritated at the half baked effort to find and eliminate the sow and cubs. Clearly, if they had wanted to find and remove them, they would have baited them and taken care of business, not wasted time and money wandering up and down Rover's.
    My suggestion of a hunt is that F&G do it with shotguns. Maybe not optimal, but that's what the APD took to protect themselves, and usable range is approx. 100 yards.
    Thanks for your insight. There are no easy answers.
  • 10-02-2008
    sean salach
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Valhalla
    ..........If there was a hunt on the Hillside for bears (there is a limited one for moose now) many areas would then be closed in May and August. Do you want people running up and down the Hillside firing off their .338s that have the potential of traveling 4000 meters? And I don't want gut shot bears running around the Hillside either -that is a far worse situation than we have now........


    just a quick note on this point. i realize that it's on the other side of the world and that population density and layout cast dramatically different shadows on how events occur, but: back in new jersey, the parks(state, county, occasionally municipal) schedule hunts for a total of four weeks out of the year, during which time the parks are closed till noon, when the hunters need to be out of the woods. those granted permits are DFG certified 'sharp shooters'. it has served to manage the deer and black bear populations very well, and only lightly disrupts the normal users of the parks. i don't think anyone whose opinion is worth anything is suggesting opening up FNBP to anyone who can legally hunt in the state of alaska.
  • 10-03-2008
    singletrack99501
    bear control can't work in Anchorage unless all bears in AK are eliminated
    Great posts and debate, not like the insipid dual press conference that Biden and Palin held tonite!

    Hey Icky, the problem with trying to control the bears in Anchorage is that unless you kill every bear from here to McCarthy, Denali Park, the entire Kenai, and all of the Talkeetna's, you can never get rid of them...take out 15 and 15 more from other areas will move in (unless they're habituated on a widespread, regional population basis to fear man, which won't happen throughout the MOA, including Chugach SP, because it probably won't ever be open to griz hunts from downtown to Lake George)

    The bear issue is just one symptom of the Muni having abandoned wildland parks for the past 20 years; other symptoms are our ever deteriorating trails, a lack of basic improvements for sustainability, let alone functionality (how long have we needed bridges on the Tour of Anchorage now?), loss of important habitat and corridors (anyone see that the new east segment of Dowling has been hydroaxed into existence this week?), lack of adequate access, conflicts with adjacent landowners, the inability to achieve critical trail corridors called for in plans over 20 years ago, inability to coordinate and develop major trail systems with adjacent public land managers (especially Chugach State Park, but also Ft. Rich), yadda yadda The only reason the Mayor closed Rovers Run was to cover his ass, and most likely the only people who will make any sacrifices to provide for public safety will be users like us who are denied the legal right to access public areas, even though statistically it's safer to ride a bike down Rovers Run than it is to ride one along Tudor Road!

    So, a couple of ideas:
    Salmon in the city may seem like a nice idea, but in AK, where there are salmon, there are bears--so it's really a salmon n bears in the city program...So let's get rid of the salmon, and the bear 'problem' will take care of itself.

    Next, Karellian bear dogs...I've heard rumors that some Canadian Rockies communities are using these very intelligent and fearless, bear repelling breed of dog to give bears negative habituation for hanging out in certain areas...of course, would need a bunch of investigation, but instead of having a bunch of ADFG biologists go out to shoot the most recent problem bear, why not have someone with one or two of these dogs go out and haze the bears instead...

    See ya all on Rovers Run! k2
  • 10-03-2008
    Valhalla
    That has been the big danger and legal entanglement that comes with answering questions like how many bears do we have and how do they use the landscape in Anchorage. In the past if there was continued bear activity on a trail or an encounter the trail would get posted. and a mauling could lead to further action. But what happens if the gps collars tell us that there are bears on the trails all of the time or that there are gps fixes right outside a school? What happens if we collect data off a collar that shows a bear somewhere and then someone gets mauled in that same spot? What is the liability and accountability for the ADFG or the Muni? Do we start to post everything and everywhere? Where is that fine line between action and inaction? Is ignorance really bliss?
  • 10-03-2008
    mybrainhurts
    Windriver Bear Institute
    Karelian bear dogs have been used successfully in Montana and Alberta Canada by the Windriver Bear Institute to deal with problem bears. http://beardogs.org/intro.html. Ask them to email their informative press kit. There are letters of recommendation from biologists working for Montana fish and wildlife, Glacier National Park, and Alberta fish and wildlife.
    The adverse conditioning tools used by WRBI in conjunction with an aggressive public education program have made a big difference in these communities. Anchorage is a prime candidate for this program.

    I would also like to thank Valhalla for his thoughtful and informed comments. Aside from a couple of recent studies, how much do we really know about bear populations around Anchorage? What effect would a hunt have on bear populations? Does a hunt target the problem bears? There are too many unknown factors here. A hunt should be a last resort.
    I don't think Anchorage has a bear problem....yet. Statistics show that more people have been killed/injured by moose than by bears. I don't know the details about the attack on the mountain bike racer, but the woman jogger did just about everything wrong in her encounter. Public education is key. If you choose to use the trails, you need to know what to do, and what not to do if you encounter a bear.
  • 10-06-2008
    Fat Chick
    I'm really quite annoyed that the powers that be didn't bother to respond to the reports of aggressive bears until two people got hurt. I find that ridiculous. Perhaps if they'd eliminated the problem bears at the very start of the "problem", things wouldn't have gotten so bad. Now no one can make any decisions about bears without making a committee and having eight public meetings.

    There are many bears that live near humans and don't cause problems. The ones that do cause problems should be immediately destroyed. This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. It seems very clear that there are more bears on Hillside than there used to be, or said bears are more habituated than they have been in the past. Either way - that is a problem.

    But back to trail stuff - I submitted comments that I didn't want any more trail widening or smoothing in FNBP or anywhere else in the muni, but I got some canned answer and am pretty cynical about it. I think we're about to lose a bunch more trails to the ski lobby.
  • 10-06-2008
    ickyickyptngzutboing
    Karelian Bear Dogs -- This is the kind of information that I hoped would come out of this thread. I know shooting bears isn't the answer, as you're not really deterring more bears from coming back. I wonder if these dogs could be implemented somehow?
  • 10-07-2008
    SkiMonkee
    Quote:

    Karelian Bear Dogs Karelian Bear Dogs
    The only question that remains is...on-leash or off-leash.

    Sorry I just couldn't help myself. Maybe we can see the 2 longest winded threads merge into one.

    ...now where did that dead horse get to?
  • 10-07-2008
    ickyickyptngzutboing
    We might as well through the 'Second' Bridge to Nowhere in the mix as well -- we might as well be thorough!
  • 10-07-2008
    Valhalla
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ickyickyptngzutboing
    Karelian Bear Dogs -- This is the kind of information that I hoped would come out of this thread. I know shooting bears isn't the answer, as you're not really deterring more bears from coming back. I wonder if these dogs could be implemented somehow?

    I do not believe that bear dogs work in large areas like Far North. My impression is that they are only used for point source issues such as camps (industrial, commercial), ranches,homesteads, dumps, etc. The park is a lot of ground to cover (although Rover's area is more discrete). My big question would be who has the staff (24 hrs) and and most importantly, can you aversively condition bears off a salmon stream. I don't think that you can keep them away from an instinctual, large-scale, natural food source that is 7 miles long.

    The use of dogs has been discussed at ADFG and for the reasons above have been dismissed. Now if we had large packs of free ranging bear dogs - then it becomes a different story!
  • 10-09-2008
    mybrainhurts
    the purpose of bear dogs is not to drive all bears out of a particular area. their main purpose is to identify problem bears including those that seem to have lost their fear of humans and could then become a problem bear, and re-teach them to be wary around humans. given the number of bears identified by hair samples in the anchorage area, it's amazing that there haven't been more problems or more sightings...the fact that seeing a brown bear around town is still a relitively rare thing is a good sign that most bears are still wary of humans, but anchorage needs to be much more proactive in the way it deals with bears. rather than wait till bears begin raiding more garbage cans, or wait till the next person gets his/her butt chewed, why not make bear proof garbage cans mandatory, and why not begin a major public education blitz this winter that includes singing the praises of carrying pepper spray?

    if adfg has truely looked into the use of bear dogs, why were they dismissed? did they consult directly with the wind river bear institute? too much area to cover? galcier natl. park seems pretty big to me. as do places like canmore and
    kananaskis alberta. and do we really need to patrol the whole park, or just the more high risk areas? need staff? given the number of dog owners in town, would it be that hard to find volunteers to partially pay their own way for the needed training program through wrbi?
    the wind river bear institute was founded by a bear biologist. biologists in glacier natl. park, montana state wildlife biologists and provincial biologists in alberta gave wrbi's program a thumbs up. what seems to be lacking is the political will to do something.
  • 10-10-2008
    Valhalla
    The muni sets the regs for garbage handling and ADFG would love to mandate bear proof cans, garbage out on garbage day only, bigger fines, and fines for baiting bears with feeders, improperly stored food and garbage, etc. ADFG finally got the fines for bear in garbage increased this year from approx $100 to $300, but until that bear is physically in the garbage ADFG's hands are strapped. In fact, about 3-4 years ago there was a big push by ADFG to get the muni to only allow garbage to be put out on collection day. It raised a big stink amongst people who work odd hours and by the collection companies who claimed that it would throw off collection services. It was shot down, but in some areas hours of collection have changed and there is a subsidization of bear-proof garbage cans.

    It is not a lack of political will that is preventing movement forward. In regards to the bear dogs it is about the proper application of the correct management tool. Wildlife management is primarily about people management. The political issue here is between the Muni and ADFG regarding garbage handling and ownership. There are folks using bear dogs on the Kenai and they have come forth to discuss their use here in Anchorage. These dogs are used for farms and commercial/industrial camps to keep bears at bay (food issues: livestock, garbage, etc.).Yes Glacier is big and so is Canmore but the application is at the campgrounds, work facilities, dumps and dumpsters where there is a point source problem not the entire park. The places that you have mentioned also have laws that regulate garbage and there are consequences of baiting bears into improperly store food sources. The Rover's area may fall into that category, but Rovers's is a conflict between bears using a historic salmon stream (natural food source many miles long) and recreationists persistently moving through these areas at times when food is readily available to bears and then surprising them into confrontation (even after the trail had been closed).I agree that it is time to think outside the box, however, until there is no attractor to bring these bears in (fish/garbage) and individuals do not take responsibility for their actions, aversive conditioning on the scale you are suggesting is not going to be effective.