Haines group weighs restoring bear monitors, short-term Fish and Game hire and bridge fixes to ease Chilkoot Corridor conflicts

The Haines Borough Chilkoot Corridor working group met to review options for reducing human–bear conflicts and to discuss how to restore a bear-monitor program that dissolved after 2019. Agency staff and community members debated short-term staffing, fee collection, enforcement limits and whether developing the east side of the bridge would ease or worsen crowding.

Brad (first name only), a representative of the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, told the group that the Chilkoot Lake State Recreation Site is managed by Alaska State Parks and that the division currently lacks the staff to reinstate a paid monitor program. “We don't have the ability to close public lands,” Brad said, adding that park units can close specific facilities but not general public access. He also warned that fees collected at park units feed into the division’s broader revenue stream and “there's no guarantee that that money will trickle back down to be put into Chilkoot.”

A Fish and Game staff member who described having worked as a monitor in 2018–2019 said the earlier paid program was effective but dissolved because of COVID-related changes and funding reductions. “I worked closely with both of those bear monitors, and it was very sad to see that dissolve because it was really effective,” the staff member said. Fish and Game staff emphasized that volunteers alone are not a full substitute for trained, supervised monitors and noted that current field technicians are entry-level employees who can educate visitors but are not enforcement officers.

Participants discussed several short- and longer-term options. Hannah (first name only) said Fish and Game could potentially hire a short-term, 120-day nonpermanent employee to serve an educational-monitor role if the agency approves the position and the director/commissioner signs off. She cautioned that approval, housing and logistics would need to be worked out: “That would be one of the options we are throwing around as to potentially get a bear monitor on the landscape,” she said.

Committee members suggested revenue ideas such as a kiosk fee, day-use parking and boat-launch fees to support monitoring. Brad said the state parks fee program is ready in infrastructure terms but remains constrained by staffing: “We just need to have staff to facilitate that program,” he said, and added that higher-level waiver requests to hire during the statewide freeze remain unresolved.

The group spent substantial time on the bridge area, where many bear–human interactions occur. Several members argued that adding viewing infrastructure or development on the east side of the bridge could actually increase risk by surrounding bears with people on both sides. “When we start talking about developing both sides of the river… you’d have people 360 degrees around bears,” Brad said. Members favored longer-term bridge redesign options — for example, dedicated pedestrian walkways or gated crossings — and recommended coordination with the Department of Transportation, since the bridge and highway jurisdiction are outside the state recreation site.

Agency staff reviewed technological options for monitoring fish passage and therefore bear activity, but said sonar does not perform well in the glaciated, silty Chilkoot system and that video solutions would require substantial overhead and budget. The staff member said the department is trying to balance fish-sampling accuracy with public-safety needs but that budget and staffing shortfalls limit changes in the near term.

Public commenters urged a mix of education, clearer signage and careful limitations. A commenter suggested day-use hours or seasonal closures of specific facilities to give bears “breathing room,” and proposed a simple outreach tool — a scaled card to help visitors judge safe distance to wildlife. Laurie Smith, who identified herself as a member of the parks and recs board and the tourism advisory board, urged caution about using untrained volunteers who may appear to have authority and asked the group to avoid restricting local residents' access to the boat launch without clear justification.

The meeting produced no formal votes. Participants asked staff to pursue possible short-term Fish and Game hiring approvals, consider supervised volunteer programs only where a permanent supervisor exists, and work with borough and DOT officials on bridge-design planning. The group discussed potential outreach (brochures and a visitor-center video) and tentatively scheduled a follow-up meeting for March. The working group will reconvene to review progress on hiring waivers, monitor options and any preliminary bridge coordination.

What’s next: staff will report back on the status of hiring waivers and any feasibility for a short-term educational monitor; the borough and tourism staff will continue outreach planning; and committee members indicated they will track any updates on fee authorities or bridge-design opportunities.