An alternative approach could give officials more flexibility in dealing with grizzly bears if they are reintroduced to the North Cascades.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will explore the possibility of a so-called “experimental population” in the hopes of easing concerns related to public safety and local livestock.
“It has potential to mitigate concerns local individuals might have,” North Cascades National Park’s Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources Jack Oelfke said. “It affords more flexibility to deal with any individual bear that may appear to be getting into trouble.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Ann Froschauer said a proposal could be released by October that would outline how such a plan would work.
Until then, Froschauer and others will continue to discuss the plans with logging companies, ranchers and others who use the vast backcountry where the bears would live. Environmental groups and federal officials also expect to speak more with commissioners in Okanogan, Chelan, Skagit and Kittitas counties, who have all spoken against creating a population of about 200 bears to the 9,800-square-mile region.
“We’ve done some stakeholder outreach to folks that have been participating in the outreach process,” Froschauer said. “When we publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period at that time.”
Another key player will be U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside, who remains adamant in his opposition despite Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke endorsing the reintroduction at an event in Sedro-Wooley in March. Citing constituent support, Newhouse introduced a budget amendment approved by the House Committee on Appropriations in early June that would deny funding for the Department of Interior’s proposal to bring back grizzlies.
“My interest in this has been that they take the wishes of the people that will be most impacted by these decisions into account and not make decisions without that input,” Newhouse said in a phone interview.
Oelfke called Zinke’s support “incredibly important” in getting the proposal back on track after a lengthy delay.
A flood of public comments and some hesitation from Zinke’s office delayed work on a final decision, which will include a choice of three alternatives for bringing in bears, or maintaining the status quo. Oelfke hopes adding the experimental population rules under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act will help find a compromise with those who are against relocating grizzlies.
For instance, if a bear wanders outside the boundaries that stretch north to Canada from near Snoqualmie Pass, officials would be authorized to retrieve the bear and return it to an area that’s more remote.
Oelfke said North Cascades National Park already has someone on the planning team from another area with grizzlies and would be prepared to devote more resources to preventing potential conflicts with hikers, livestock and others.
The proposal scheduled for release this fall would answer several questions regarding exactly how to handle bears in the event five to 10 are released annually for two to 25 years, depending on the alternative chosen by Fish and Wildlife.
Froschauer said if the department decides to relocate bears, the management regulations would be finalized in February.
Civil discussions
More than 60 experimental populations have been approved throughout the country, including grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Mountains spanning parts of Montana and Idaho. Biologists believe only five to 10 bears still live in the North Cascades and that population is unlikely to grow on its own.
Conservation Northwest spokesman Chase Gunnell said his organization supports using experimental population rules, and they’ve spoken frequently with those concerned about public safety or the effects of bears killing livestock. Gunnell praised Newhouse for respectful and civil discussions, even though the two sides disagree on the potential effects of bringing back grizzly bears.
“We know there are passionate supporters in areas around the North Cascades, including east of the mountains,” Gunnell said. “We’ve seen that in multiple polls. We’ve seen that in public comment meetings.”
Newhouse acknowledges most of the comments from those outside the area support grizzly restoration, but he believes the opinions of residents in the area should carry much greater weight. Ranchers with livestock and recreation groups have thus far been the most vocal in sharing their opposition with Newhouse.
Reassurances from federal officials to listen to everyone left Newhouse optimistic about public hearings to be held later this year.
Kittitas County Commissioner Obie O’Brien said he’s heard similar objections to bringing back grizzlies at an open house in Cle Elum and elsewhere.
“There was a little bit of concern about safety and that sort of thing,” O’Brien said. “There was some concern by the cattle producers that perhaps this was being pushed forward without a lot of actual thought by those people that keep wanting to change the natural environment.”
Conversations in the House left Newhouse confident the bill with his amendment to deny funding would pass when it goes to the floor next week, but approval from the Senate could be more difficult. Newhouse said he hasn’t heard many opinions from senators on either side of the issue and plans to work with Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both Democrats.
The long, drawn-out process is similar to what happened nearly two decades ago in the Bitterroot Mountains in central Idaho and western Montana, the area identified by federal officials as the best remaining unoccupied grizzly habitat in the contiguous United States.
Fish and Wildlife signed a final record of decision to introduce an experimental population in November 2000 with considerable support from politicians and the public. But before bears could be moved, opinions changed as mistrust for the government grew and the Bush administration cut funding, effectively ending the project.
