Returning a 600-pound apex predator to the North Cascades Ecosystem excites those who see grizzly bears as being integral to wildness, but it concerns some of those who will have to live with the bruins.
“Some of our concerns in general, and I think a lot of people share this as well, is the safety factor,” says Nino Maltos, chairperson of the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. “The fact is that this bear hasn't been here in so long that the area is not used to it. Even the other animals in the area aren't used to it. By bringing back such a big wild animal to the area, it may put some of our tribal members' lives in danger.”
Equipped with 4-inch claws and canine teeth not quite half that long, grizzly bears are one of the largest, and most feared, land mammals in North America. They are powerful animals that capture the attention of tourists in national parks. For the North Cascades in Washington state, the bears are seen as a missing ecological link to a healthy ecosystem.
The National Park Service, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announced in April their intention to return grizzlies to the sprawling ecosystem, which includes the North Cascades National Park Complex. Officials say the animals have called the park home for hundreds of years, but it’s been nearly 30 years since a grizzly was seen in the ecosystem.
The ecosystem seems perfect for the bears. The recovery plan is set to play out in one of the largest wild areas remaining in the lower 48 states, an area that spans roughly 9,500 square miles in north-central Washington. All told, roughly 85 percent of the recovery area is under federal management. There are mountains that rise above 9,000 feet and, according to scientists, prime grizzly habitat that ranges from "temperate rainforests on the western side of the Cascade Range to dry Pondersoa pine forests and sage-steppe on the east side" that could support approximately 280 grizzly bears.
The recovery decision was applauded by many organizations, community members, and local tribal leaders who have rallied for years to bring the iconic animal back to the Cascades in the United States.
But Maltos and the Sauk-Suiattle people oppose other nearby tribes, including the Skagit and Snoqualmie tribes, that support the cultural significance of grizzlies to the area. Maltos doesn’t diminish the cultural significance, but says he’s more focused on how the bears will impact their current lives, including concerns over salmon that spawn in the Sauk and Skagit rivers.
“This area is close to our reservation and homelands and is one of the biggest spawning grounds for salmon,” says Maltos. “I know they say that grizzlies eat a lot of vegetables and non-meat, but you know, once they get into the wild, they have just as much free will as we do.”
While the ecosystem is thought to be capable of supporting nearly 300 individual grizzlies, the current plan calls for a population of 25 to be established in five to ten years/USFWS file
Adamantly opposed to the recovery plan is Republican Congressman Dan Newhouse, who has been vocal about safety concerns [See video below]. Others include local county and organizations across the West that represent farmers and cattle ranchers.
The Chelan County Commission has opposed the recovery plan, noting that more than 84 percent of the county lies within the North Cascades Ecosystem. Commissioners have maintained the plan didn’t sufficiently consider “public safety, economic development, recreation opportunities and overall livelihood of rural communities.”
“We hear a lot that we just need to trust the science, but I think that there are legitimate concerns about what that reintroduction looks like and how people are able to live with grizzlies,” says Tiffany Gering, District 3 commissioner for Chelan County. “It's been proven that we're capable of living with it. There are lots of different communities that live with grizzlies and do just fine, but nonetheless, it's an apex predator that is being reintroduced, and there are many concerns.”
The commissioner added that, “I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. I think that we can learn from (other communities) and adopt some of the education programs that they have. I really do believe that it's important to share the message with our constituents that we need to move into the phase of educating people on how to live with bears.”
While the federal agencies have yet to fully explain how the recovery plan would be implemented, it’s expected to involve bears from other ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains or interior British Columbia. Additionally, the bears would be designated a "nonessential experimental" population, the Endangered Species Act designation used in the 1990s when wolves were returned to Yellowstone National Park. Such a designation gives federal agencies more leeway in managing the species that would not otherwise be available under existing ESA regulations.
Plus, proponents say it wouldn’t be an overnight change that would send shudders through the ecosystem and its human communities.
“The rate of change on the landscape will be much more gradual. ... the rate of change will not be as quickly as wolves on the landscape,” says Graham Taylor, the Northwest program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. “Wolves reproduce really quickly and grizzly bears do not. Grizzly bears are the second-slowest reproducing land mammal in North America after the musk ox. Plus, the cubs have about a 50 percent mortality rate.”
When the bears are released on federal lands in remote sections of the North Cascades, biologists will fit each bear with a radio collar so they can be tracked. Still, that hasn’t mollified everyone.
“There are definitely people who feel very strongly on both sides of the issue, and those people have been heard,” says Jasmine Minbashian, the executive director of the Methow Valley Citizens Council and part of the Friends of the North Cascades Grizzly Bear. “I'd say the majority of folks here inherently value the wide-open spaces here. They value wildlife, they also value their recreation opportunities, and they're just not used to living in grizzly country.”
Methow Valley is home to some of the North Cascades’ gateway communities. Minbashian calls the area home and hears the debate over the bears from others in the community.
After news broke that the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would move forward with grizzly recovery, the Friends of the North Cascades Grizzly Bear pivoted to educating locals about being outdoors with grizzlies. Becoming familiar with bear spray was one tip, another was the use of electric fences to keep bears away from livestock and poultry.
“The good news is in other places where there are grizzly bears living in the lower 48, you can easily live, work, recreate in grizzly country safely and happily,” says Minbashian. “Our organization, now that we have this record of decision, is shifting all our energy and resources into bear awareness and conflict prevention.”
Once the recovery program moves to actually putting bears on the ground, visitors shouldn’t expect to see any grizzlies anytime soon. The process will be slow, with wildlife officials releasing a few bears a year. The plan calls for the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to move three-seven grizzly bears per year for a period of five to 10 years to establish an initial population of 25 bears in the area.
Comments
I have opinions on this issue. Among other matters, I first of all believe that there are many opinions to be heard, however only informed and invested opinions carry merit. The most iinformed opinons I've heard come from educated and trained people like wildlive biologists. By invested, I refer to people who live in the North Cascade ecosystem, and therefore may be impacted in the real --- not cyber --- world. I do live in that ecosystem, and have aldo previouslyspent years living in "bear country" in Alaska as well.
I love wilderness but am sad to hear of this decision. My heart goes out to the hundreds perhaps thousands of newborn babies of all species including black bears,not to mention deer and elk that will be killed each year by these apex predators. Given the massive increase in public use along the trails of the public my heart goes out to each and every individual and their families that will be affected by family members being mauled by these animals. I believe the goverment should be financially liable for each attack to the tune of millions. In addition the organizers of thus plan should be held liable in civil court by the victims. You want to play God then show us you can bring back the salmon. Stop climate change , save the forests. He'll stop the decline of all living creatures. News flash the planet has changed. Face it and save what's left.
Introducing Grizzlies into the Northern Cascades is a fantastically great mistake. Those areas haven't seen Grizzlies in 50+ years. Those areas have become a Primo spot for hiking and hunting. I guarantee you that hikers will be jumped by those bruins and if they are alert enough to defend themselves and survive, it will most likely be that the bear was killed in Self defense. But with the Endangered Species Act in effect, that person or persons would be arrested and charged for breaking the Endangered Species Act. The ones arrested will more then likely hit those responsible with a lawsuit so great that they won't be able to satisfy the demands of the lawsuit. So, with that in mind, it would be advisable to drop the reintroduction of Grizzlies into the Northern Cascades and concentrate on expanding the population of the Grizzlies in their present habitats. It will ultimately save money and lives in the long run.
I am no wildlife biologist, but have been active for years as a volunteer with a non-profit that promotes the use and preservation of the Pacific Crest Trail, which travels through the North Cascades as part of its passage from the Mexican Border to the Canadian Border. The introduction of Grizzlies into this area will almost certainly benefit the entire ecosystem, just as the past existence of Grizzlies naturally spread throughout the west did. From my years of experience in wild areas of Alaska, where I hiked, camped and fished many times within yards of Grizzlies feeding on the same salmon I sought, showed me that education and respect for wildlife is what people need to have to exist alongside all wild creatures, including bears, mountain lions and other animals that might otherwise be dangerous. It has been the same process as wolves have been brought back into their natural habitat areas, and the benefits of restoring the natural community of the wilderness after centuries of depradation by human resource extraction have been evident--except to those who would continue their exploitation. Before condemning this step, it helps to examine the other areas where people thoughtfully co-exist with these creatures. By following established practices of managing food and other attractive substances while in the vicinity of bears, etc., we can keep them from becoming habituated to linking such items with humans nearby, and then from seeking out where people are coming into the woods as a means of obtaining artificial food sources. Visitors to the wilderness need to remember they are not the owners of the places they visit.
In 1995, Washington State, with a 44-5 vote, created legislation (RCW.77.12.035), declaring, "grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state."
Protection of grizzly bears--Limitation on transplantation or introduction--Negotiations with federal and state agencies.
The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. 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. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.
[ 2000 c 107 SS 211; 1995 c 370 SS 1.]
Am a resident in Kingwood, Texas, a retired teacher, 71 yrs old, reading this plan mentioned above and I honestly loved and enjoyed my visit in North Cascade National Park with my son few years ago for the first time, who still lives till now in Vancouver, WA. My adventures in NCNP was incredibly impressive and memorable seeing the beauty of nature there that we don't have here in Texas. My concern and priority are the safety, protection and freedom of all residents in the surrounding areas that are affected in this"grizzly bear back program" into wilderness including the less aggressive dangerous baby animals that will be also affected with the existence of these scary huge dangerous specie, grizzly bears. Hopefully all re-considerations of ideas, safety rules and regulations should be discuss by the panels of implementors of this plan which is directly impacting the residents in NCNP. There should be limitations to be in place for this to happen and involvement of residents , they should be heard as well. Thank you and God bless us all.
I was a seasonal park ranger in the Tetons in the 1970s and recorded the first reintroduction (griz tracks in the Snake Riverbanks) of grizzlies back to that park; wandering in from Yellowstone. They had been hunted out over the preceding century. At the time, the Yellowstone cohort had dwindled down to about 125 bears with only 13 breeding sows. Park policies had recently changed (after abrupt dump closures) and this population was now expanding again. We were elated, of course. There have been a few human-grizzley encounters since but in general both human and grizzly species have co-existed just fine with genetic diversity of this species improved as a result. Of course, the tourism to view these bears has increased exponentially and awareness of grizzlies has improved. I would not be in the least fearful of NoCa's introduction. I've hiked extensively in the NoCa and run into two black bears in my lifetime (almost 78 years now). One gave chase and one fled terrified of us. I believe I saw one grizzly at Cutthroat Pass in the late '90s--yes, they've been there for decades. Part of the wilderness experience. Since this is an experimental effort, let's see how this plays out. I, for one, think it is a good move. (PS: I currently live remotely in Alaska and interact with bears every year.)