[Schroder]

Plans to bring grizzly bears back to North Cascades move forward By LUKE THOMPSON Yakima Herald-Republic, Wash. The latest efforts to restore grizzly bears in the North Cascades appear to be on track to take another big step forward in June. U.S. Fish and Wildlife spokesperson Andrew LaValle recently confirmed that the agency expects to put out a draft environmental impact statement, or EIS, in June for plans to bring the bears to Washington state. The process nearly reached a final EIS before the Trump administration shut it down with no explanation in July 2020. North Cascades National Park wildlife supervisor Jason Ransom said the new EIS should allow for more flexibility for federal officials as they try to slowly build back a population believed to be on the verge of extinction. He’s hopeful that will sway opponents concerned about threats to livestock and humans recreating in the North Cascades ecosystem comprised of more than 2.6 million acres of federally designated wilderness. “We did reach out to all the congressional representatives in Washington,” Ransom said. “We’ve briefed all of them once. Right now everybody’s just waiting on the draft EIS that has the real specific plans.” He said those will include details such as additional management options, maps identifying where officials want bears to go and strategies for how to handle animals if they go outside those boundaries. An experimental population rule-making process would allow the National Park Service and the USFWS to better manage and regulate bears as they are brought in from British Columbia and northwest Montana. The proposal would introduce three to seven bears over five to 10 years with the objective of reaching a population of 25. Once that goal is achieved, more bears could be released as the agencies seek to create a population of 200 grizzlies within 60-100 years. A final EIS could be made available to the public in spring 2024, followed closely by a record of decision allowing land managers to move forward with translocations. However, the suspension of the process in 2017 shortly after a draft EIS came out and then the termination in 2020 after 2018’s surprising message of support from Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke showed how quickly plans can change. Ransom said the agencies received around 6,200 pieces of correspondence in response to November’s notice of intent, and those will be considered along with the more than 126,000 pieces of correspondence submitted in 2017, many of which the USFWS said contained multiple substantive comments. LaValle expects to see a combination of in-person and virtual meetings later this year to discuss the plans with supporters as well as a vocal group of opponents, which includes U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside. “My constituents and I have consistently opposed proposals to [introduce grizzly bears into the North Cascades] under multiple administrations because introducing an apex predator to the area would threaten the families, wildlife and livestock of North Central Washington,” Newhouse said in a statement in November. “I strongly encourage the people of Central Washington to attend the virtual meetings in order to voice their opinion and put this misguided proposal to rest, once and for all.” Conservation Northwest International Programs Director Joe Scott pointed out the majority of respondents favored grizzly bear restoration. He believes the federal agencies could finally succeed at accomplishing what has been a goal since 1987, with formal efforts dating back to 1997, and said the land managers have the most to lose if conflicts with bears go poorly. “Restoring bears from near zero is quite a difficult task and I don’t think people really understand how difficult it is,” Scott said. “The animals suitable for translocations to a place like the Cascades, it’s a small set of animals out there.” LaValle said officials have already talked to the Colville Tribe and plan to continue discussions with several others, along with local landowners and cooperating agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Although Washington law prevents state officials from participating directly in translocating grizzlies, WDFW’s diversity division manager, Hannah Anderson, said the agency is required to be involved in conversations and plans to offer technical support and expertise when possible. Some 50 to 70 grizzlies already live in Northeast Washington’s Selkirk Mountains, one of six grizzly bear recovery zones throughout the U.S. that represent an estimated 3% of the bear’s former range. Scott acknowledged some conflicts may be unavoidable but said he’s looking forward to helping combat what he referred to as disinformation and a lack of knowledge to help people understand the importance of bringing grizzly bears back to the ecosystem. “The thing about the Cascades is that it’s the only potential landing spot for recovery or restoration outside the Rocky Mountains,” Scott said. “If we cannot accommodate them in this minuscule percentage of their former range, what does that say about us as a species?”

[Worthington]

[Anne Elk]

“The thing about the Cascades is that it’s the only potential landing spot for recovery or restoration outside the Rocky Mountains,” Scott said. “If we cannot accommodate them in this minuscule percentage of their former range, what does that say about us as a species?” What ridiculous rhetoric. There's been plenty "said" about us as a species; we've been extirpating other life forms, races, ecosystems, you name it, for centuries. It's one of our top skills. Conservation NW et al wants what it wants and has no sense of perspective whatever on reality or what can practically be achieved. Scott admits that the NC is a "miniscule % of their former range", but thinks they should do it, anyway. All the odds work against it: not enough room, climate change making the bears' usual habitat even less habitable, and then the inevitability of incursions into farms and human habitation for food. I doubt the area could reasonably sustain so many bears. There will be the inevitable calls for killings when the conflicts occur. A huge waste of financial and human resources. Maybe I'm just too pragmatic. It's over, people. We're past the tipping point in so many ways. People need to stop rearranging chairs on the Titanic. I'm also having a bad day, so zero patience for this.

[reststep]

From the article: “Conservation Northwest International Programs Director Joe Scott pointed out the majority of respondents favored grizzly bear restoration. He believes the federal agencies could finally succeed at accomplishing what has been a goal since 1987, with formal efforts dating back to 1997, and said the land managers have the most to lose if conflicts with bears go poorly.” I would be interested to know how the land managers would have the most to lose if conflicts with bears go poorly. It seems like ranchers and farmers might have the most to lose and maybe hikers also.

[Sculpin]

[runup]

[Anne Elk]

[cdestroyer]

imma gonna thrust my foot in the door here and say yalls want grizz you can have all you want, we have plenty since they are now being delisted from the depopulation list along with the bison who are now being moved to the open plains...anne elk can see the open door and I hope she steps aside and lets yall in... have fun with the grizz, we been playin with em long enough... here yall go all the reference material you could ever ask for concerning grizzly bear recovery::: https://www.cfc.umt.edu/grizzlybearrecovery/publications/default.php and as I peruse the internet I find more fuel for the fire...you should have enough data now to convince even the greatest skeptic that relocation dont work very well. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Haroldson/publication/232669895_Grizzly_bear-human_conflicts_in_the_Greater_Yellowstone_ecosystem_1992-2000/links/0c960528a3f06b6fac000000/Grizzly-bear-human-conflicts-in-the-Greater-Yellowstone-ecosystem-1992-2000.pdf

[Celticclimber]

I really hate to say that I agree with Anne Elk: that it's already too late...to save anything ( including us ) However. This griz reintro debate has been going on since the 90's. So how long are we going to keep pushing this along? All that being said: I still think we should give it a go. Ma Nature can figure out if it will work or not.

[The Ghost of Bear 380]

I'm in the pro-bears camp, and mostly for the tribes of the PNW. Indigenous Peoples' spiritual and cultural connection to the grizzly bear is well documented. Indigenous Peoples have been the best stewards of the lands we recreate on. Like, for millennia. Nobody has managed their lands better than they have. They want the bears back and I think we should trust and honor that. This is one part of the convo that doesn't get talked about enough (or at all). When it comes to wildfires and how the west is burning up every year, there is more and more talk about how we should manage the forests as they did. Meaning, low intensity burning early in the dry season. I've seen that debate on this site. Funny that some people trust the tribes' judgement for fire management, but not for wildlife management.

[Chief Joseph]

[altasnob]

Draft Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan / Environmental Impact Statement, North Cascades Ecosystem The National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are seeking public input on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that evaluates options for restoring grizzly bears to the North Cascades Ecosystem in Washington, where the animals once roamed. Comment Period: Sep 28, 2023 - Nov 13, 2023 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=327&projectID=112008&documentID=132104

[Cyclopath]

[Bowregard]

I am not opposed to grizzlies in the Cascades and I was around when there used to be a reasonable population here. And I am by no means an expert on the species or the Cascade ecosystems. But does anybody really believe that the ecosystem will support a self-sustaining population of Grizzly bears well into the future? GNP has a sizable population of bears with a limited number of roads and if you sign up for the information notices you will get a very clear idea of how much time, effort, and resources are spent trying to manage the co-existence of bears and humans. The Cascades today are not the same as they were when the Grizzly thrived here and IMHO are different than GNP and other areas that support Grizzly bear populations. There are many more people living, working, and recreating in and around wilderness areas in the Cascades today. Just how do you think this would go? I expect for a time everything would be fine. Gizzlies would initially find plenty of food to keep them mostly wild. But us humans as a species are not very smart about co-existing, and the bears, though smart enough to take advantage of an easy meal, are not aware that it results in a short life span. I just hate to see the resources allocated to plan, transport, manage, and clean up failures for a large, long-term project when the situation is not conducive for success. I am sure the studies will say that the plan has a high probability of achieving the goals but in my mind the critical measure of success will not be fully measured until well after the authors of those studies are gone. I am not worried about myself or my tax $$$. It is future generations that will be impacted most by the results. Past generations may have eliminated the Grizzly bear in the Cascades, but I haven't seen much evidence that our behavior towards them has improved enough to do right in bringing them back.

[altasnob]

The title of this thread is very deceiving. The grizzly bear habitat being considered isn't isolated to North Cascades National Park, but includes the entire North Cascades Ecosystem. The EIS defines this as "Canadian and US portions, . . . bounded roughly by the Fraser River on the north, the Okanogan Highlands and Columbia Plateau on the east, Snoqualmie Pass to the south, and the Puget lowlands to the west." Where the bears will thrive, if reintroduced, will be East of Ross Lake, into the Pasayten Wilderness, and north into Chilliwack and Manning Provincial Park, and Snowy Protected Area in Canada. This is one of the largest roadless areas in the lower 48 (maybe the largest?). The amount of people who travel into the heart of this area is a fraction of those who pass through Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, which have paved roads through them. People freak out about the possibility of grizzlies where they like to recreate when the truth is, most have probably never been to (or seldom go to) the area where the grizzlies will be concentrated. The EIS says the area can support 280 bears. Keep in mind, there are already grizzlies in NE Washington State, and there is continuous mountains from the North Cascades Ecosytem to the grizzly habitat in NE Washington, although you have major paved roads to cross in the Okanogan and Columbia River valleys.