===== A message from the 'appealist' discussion list ===== A number of people were interested in cites on the ineffectiveness of gates in securing roads for wildlife security, so I thought I'd post the following snip-it from my November 30, 1998 letter to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The Predator Project or the Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads may have further cites. They can be contacted at shawn@wildrockies.org and WildlandsCPR@wildrockies.org, respectively. Cite away and let 'er rip! Keith Hammer Chair Swan View Coalition ------------ Electronic monitoring of 11 closures, conducted by the Forest Service on the Sullivan Lake Ranger District, found that 53% of the closures had entries in excess of the standard of 2 or less entries per week. The standard was exceeded by 444%. Eighty five percent of these entries were unauthorized (Bertram 1992). Hammer (1986) found that 38% of the Forest Service road closure devices inspected in the Swan Valley were being passed by conventional passenger vehicles without resorting to the use of tools or winches. None of the closure devices appeared capable of physically restricting use by legally prohibited "trail vehicles" and 92% of the closures lacked a sign indicating that "trail vehicles" were legally prohibited behind the closure. Platt (1993) found that 55% of the closures surveyed on the Kootenai National Forest did not restrict motor vehicle use of the road behind the closure. Twenty one percent did not effectively restrict conventional motor vehicles, another 25% did not restrict off-road-vehicle use, and another 8% showed evidence of recent motor vehicle use, apparently by key, behind locked gates. A Fish and Wildlife Service survey of road closures in Bear Management Units in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems showed that between 40% and 100% of the closures, per BMU, were passable by all-terrain-vehicles. Charles Lobdell concluded: "Current accessibility (lack of physical obstruction) for motorized vehicles around existing gated or bermed restriction points, combined with a limited enforcement effort, suggest that most of the designated "restricted roads" in the BMUs, as defined in the new IGBC access task force report, function in reality as open "motorized trails" and should therefore be subject to appropriate disturbance buffers and deduction from current security totals." (Lobdell 1994, commenting on the 1994 IGBC access task force report). Literature Cited Bertram, T. M.. 1992. Biological evaluation of proposed new road construction, Harvey Creek Road improvement and rock pit development on threatened and endangered species within the LeClerc Grizzly Bear Management Unit. Sullivan Lake Ranger District, Colville National Forest. December 3, 1992. Hammer, K. J.. 1986. An on-site study of the effectiveness of the U.S. Forest Service road closure program in management situation one grizzly bear habitat, Swan Lake Ranger District, Flathead National Forest, Montana. November 1986. Lobdell, C. H.. 1994. Fish and Wildlife Service State Supervisor letter to Bonners Ferry District Ranger. August 25, 1994. Platt, T. M.. 1993. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Ecosystem - 1992 Forest Service road closure program compliance inventory. Revised February 1993.