Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haines working group narrows focus to bear–human interactions at Chilkoot Corridor; borough levers limited to permits, education and one parcel
Summary
A Haines Borough working group focused on the Chilkoot/Chilco Corridor met to identify practical steps the borough can take—permitting, protecting borough land on the far side of the bridge, and visitor education—while acknowledging that many enforcement and operational measures remain under state Parks or Fish & Game control.
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haines Borough’s Chilkoot Corridor working group met to map what the borough can do to reduce dangerous bear–human interactions and to identify areas that require state cooperation, members said.
At the meeting Patty Brown, who introduced herself as “a 30 year resident of Haines,” urged clear standards and commitments for commercial guides and their staff. "If there could be sort of a code about conduct…and that if a code can be established…you're gonna ruin it for everyone," Brown said, arguing that signed commitments by guides and permittees would help protect bears and the viewing opportunity over the long term.
Chair (speaking as the borough’s representative) framed the group’s immediate task as defining problems and proposing implementable solutions. He emphasized the borough’s limited direct authority over most of the corridor because the state manages the parkland: "it is their purview alone to decide on how it's managed." That reality led the group to focus on measures the borough can control—permitting, managing the borough parcel near the bridge and visitor education—while pressing the state for additional action.
Members discussed enforcement and cited recent citation data. Reba, who presented results of a records request, summarized enforcement activity: "in 2023, there were no citations in the Chilcote Park. In 2024, there was 1 for boating, 1 in the park itself, and 2 for traffic. And then in 2025, there was 1 for boating, 4 for fishing, 9 just citations in the park, and then 2 traffic related in the park." The numbers, participants said, underscore both enforcement gaps and stepped‑up attention in recent years.
Commercial operator Greg Schlockter raised drones and unguided users as enforcement priorities. "I believe it's illegal in the Chilkoot Corridor," Schlockter said of drone use, and he added the greater behavioral challenge comes from unguided anglers who leave coolers and fish carcasses on the bank.
The group discussed practical steps already in use elsewhere and locally: preseason meetings for guides; partnership agreements and signoffs by operators; a visitor‑center video or brochures to educate independent travelers before they enter the corridor; and continued targeted transfers of borough funds to state Parks to hire or support bear monitors. Patty and others recommended keeping the borough‑owned land on the far side of the bridge as an uninterrupted people‑free zone to provide predictable, low‑stress habitat for bears.
Members also argued for bringing more scientific expertise into the panel. Hannah, identified in the meeting as Fish & Game staff, said a fisheries biologist would be useful because the weir used to count salmon is a persistent management tool: "I don't foresee that we're going anywhere," she said of the weir, advising the group to assume it will remain in place as they design human‑use solutions.
The working group agreed to structure its work with a limited timeline and concrete deliverables. Chair proposed six meetings to develop recommendations and asked members to bring three items to the next meeting: (1) identified challenges, (2) potential solutions, and (3) specific asks of partner agencies. Hannah confirmed Shelby Fleming (commercial research biologist for fisheries) will join future meetings; staff agreed to circulate materials and calendar invites ahead of the next session.
The meeting closed with members stressing that solutions will require both borough action where it has authority (permits, management of borough land, education) and coordinated, funded responses from state partners (Parks, Fish & Game) for enforcement and on‑the‑ground staffing.
Next steps: the group scheduled a follow‑up Thursday meeting (noted in the transcript as "20 sixth at 1"), agreed to post the recording and transcript, and to circulate prior monitoring documentation and the pre‑season material that has been used by rangers and guides in past years.
