[BigBrunyon]

Once it goes rah you know how fierce it is!!

[timberghost]

Do they really say "RAH"?

[idoru]

[Vertec]

RCW 77.12.035 will prevent successful implementation of alternatives B or C: “Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs.” This means by law WDFW can NOT be involved in any way with implementing either alternative (B or C). They have ZERO power or duty to deal with a transplanted bear. This means WDFW officers will have ZERO enforcement jurisdiction regarding transplanted bears (don’t piss off a Fed Boi). Also, the “Impact Statement” relies heavily on the “1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Plan for Determining Grizzly Bear Nuisance Status and for Controlling Nuisance Grizzly Bears for the North Cascades Ecosystem” (“IGBC Plan”, Appendix D), which in turn relies heavily on “State fish and Wildlife” agency support. But in every case cited, the impact statement fails to address how the IGBC Plan will work without WDFW support. The IGBC Plan also states clearly that all state laws are to be followed. RCW permits WDFW to “fully participate in all discussions and negotiations”, but they really dropped the ball when reviewing the Impact Statement because they failed to point out the impact of their inability to lawfully support alternatives B and C. I would expect multiple lawsuits if alternative B or (when) alternative C is selected. They probably will violate the Administrative Procedures Act by selecting an alternative that they knew will require breaking state law. Or WDFW can be sued in state court to prohibit participation so either plan will just crumble

[altasnob]

That state law was implemented in 1995 at the behest of Okanogan ranchers, and has remained unchanged for nearly 30 years. WA has changed dramatically (and politically) in the last 30 years and I wouldn't be surprised if WA modifies that law to jive with federal plans to reintroduce grizzlies, if that is what the feds decide.

[Vertec]

[Logbear]

This is from the EIS.

[Ski]

"While the law prohibits the WDFW from reintroducing grizzly bears from outside Washington, it directs the WDFW to participate fully in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management." IOW: A complete and total waste of taxpayers' money and WDFW staff time.

[Pyrites]

Written to comply with federal law, which probably requires consultation with the state, while retaining authority to ignore the state?

[altasnob]

Agencies release final environmental impact statement evaluating options for restoring grizzly bears to the North Cascades The final EIS is not a decision to take a particular action, but evaluates the impacts of several alternatives. https://www.nps.gov/noca/learn/news/agencies-release-final-environmental-impact-statement-evaluating-options-for-restoring-grizzly-bears-to-the-north-cascades.htm

[Chief Joseph]

They can reintroduce grizzlies to the North Cascades but they will probably just move to Canada because they are afraid of guns.

[Stefan]

What one says is not always what one does. I have read the EIS. They are basically communicating that there might be some closures due to incidents with grizzlies--from a few hours to maybe a week. I call b.s. I believe they will suspend permits in the NCNP for MONTHS during the summer when the grizzlies are introduced. That is not something I want to happen. Introduce them. Fine. But the permitting system in the NCNP needs to be the same regardless if the grizzlies are there or not.

[idoru]

The full text of that closure statement, for those curious:

[Vertec]

[Jeff Chapman]

Some of the responses to comments raise some of my concerns (comments 79-83 in the final. It would seem to me that if there are few bears in a concentrated area, then that would result in the need to protect important habitats, not necessarily after there is a full bear population 25 years later. "As is the case with other sensitive resources on NPS and USFS lands, future public planning on federal lands in the NCE could result in seasonal closures to protect important habitats, but no such closures are anticipated during the life of this plan (25 years)." The Final also states that the USFS is now a cooperative agency with the Plan where it wasn't committed during the Draft period.