By Luke Thompson

Yakima Herald-Republic

Wildlife biologists celebrated last June when they captured a grizzly bear in Washington for the first time in more than 30 years.

After it was studied, the bear was released back into rural Pend Oreille County, equipped with a satellite-linked radio collar expected to offer valuable insight into the habits and range of the state’s most powerful predators.

Now a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service would see more grizzlies in Washington, specifically to the Cascade Mountains where large numbers once roamed.

Under the proposal, bears from Montana and British Columbia would be brought here and released to live in 9,800-square miles of remote forests covering portions of seven counties stretching from the Canadian border south to Interstate 90.

Predictably, not everyone is happy with the idea.

“Most of the public that we talked to are very much against this,” Chelan County Commissioner Doug England said. “People that don’t use the area think it would be great.”

Others note that people and grizzlies exist together in other parts of the country.

“We need to keep in mind that there are places like Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding forest, and Glacier National Park and the surrounding forest, that have pretty sizeable populations,” said Jack Oelfke, chief of natural and cultural resources for North Cascades National Park. “It seems we can get it to work for both humans and grizzlies.”

The wildlife service’s plan lays out four alternatives for bringing grizzly bears back to the north Cascades with the goal of eventually reaching a population of 200. Biologists estimate the region could carry about 280 grizzlies.

Conservation Northwest spokesman Chase Gunnell said the group prefers the alternative that would see five to seven bears released annually for 5 to 10 years, until the population reaches 25. Under that plan, it’s estimated that a population of 200 bears will take 60 to 100 years to reach.

A more aggressive alternative would see five to seven bears added annually for about 25 years, until the goal population of 200 is reached.

A third option would be to release up to 10 bears in two years and monitor them for four years before deciding to repeat that cycle or switch to the more aggressive approach to reach 25 bears. Under each of the plans, grizzlies that die, leave or are removed due to human conflict could be replaced.

A fourth option, required by law to be listed, is to maintain the existing plan, which has not done anything in the past two decades to increase the north Cascades’ estimated grizzly bear population of fewer than 10.

Safety concerns

Opponents of bringing back grizzlies have concerns about safety, recreational closures and threats to area ranchers.

Two years ago, then-state-Sen. Linda Evans Parlette, R-Chelan led a group of politicians against grizzly bear restoration in her district, which includes all of Chelan and Douglas and parts of Okanogan and Grant counties.

While she retired from the Legislature in January, she plans to continue fighting the restoration efforts, as does U.S Rep. Dan Newhouse of Sunnyside.

“Frankly, I’ve heard from no one in my district that is trying to tell me that we should move forward with this,” he said.

“I am happy that these agencies are having these public meetings,” he said, referring to a series of meetings to be held across the state, including one later this month in Cle Elum.

His late father, Irv Newhouse, a longtime former state senator, helped craft a grizzly bear management bill signed into law in 1995. It encourages state agencies to assist with the natural restoration of grizzly bears, but added they “shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state,” which does not apply to federal agencies on federal forest and park service lands.

Almost a third of comments included in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the plan in 2015 came from outside Washington and many more were submitted by Seattle-area residents. Newhouse said he understands why grizzlies would be appealing to people who live there, but he noted those relying on ranching or tourism, as well as hunting and fishing enthusiasts, have serious concerns.

Parlette argues grizzly bears would be used by the National Park Service as another reason to not re-open a stretch of Upper Stehekin Valley Road into North Cascades National Park that was closed by flooding in 2003. Congress authorized a relocation and rebuild of the road in 2015, but the park service refused, citing high costs and environmental concerns.

Oelfke said grizzly bears would have no effect on the future of the road and noted any recreational closures would be temporary. The same would be true for environmental disturbances caused during the relocation of bears, which would include an estimated 40 to 672 helicopter flights, depending on the chosen plan.

England said commissioners in Chelan and Okanogan counties will fight the project, saying federal law requires them to be included in project coordination. Kittitas County commissioners didn’t comment during the initial public campaign. Multiple calls to them this week were not answered.

Regional differences

Oelfke acknowledged there’s less support in Eastern Washington, but he noted a 2016 poll by Defenders of Wildlife — a Washington D.C.-based conservation organization — showed a majority in favor, including 90 percent in the Yakima/Tri-Cities areas. The Spokane area, which includes Okanogan County, showed 66 percent support, while the Seattle-Tacoma exurbs including Chelan and Skagit counties showed 85 percent support.

Grizzlies are bigger than black bears — which number 25,000 to 30,000 in Washington — and more dangerous, particularly when defending their cubs. But Oelfke emphasized grizzly bears are mostly vegetarian, especially the ones that would be brought to Washington from areas with similar plant-heavy food sources to the north Cascades, and they stay in rugged wilderness areas, away from casual hikers.

“If a grizzly bear knows you’re there, and you haven’t surprised them, they avoid humans as much as they can,” Oelfke said.

The draft EIS notes in the two other recovery zones — one in northeast Washington and northern Idaho, the other in northwestern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle — with populations of 80 or fewer grizzlies bears have seen only one reported injury in the past 36 years. Yellowstone National Park, which has 757 grizzly bears, reports with 104 million visitors from 1980 to 2014 there were 38 injuries related to grizzlies. The bears have killed eight people at Yellowstone in 144 years, including three since 2011.

Under the plan, none of the potential release areas are less than 10 miles from a current ranching lease. Grizzlies would be expected to kill only two sheep and one cow annually once the population reaches 200 bears. If funds are available, ranchers would be compensated for any losses.

Link to the past

Many conservation groups and Native American tribes feel grizzly bears should be allowed to reclaim their home in the north Cascades, where they once roamed in large numbers.

Historic Hudson Bay Co. trapping records show fur traders shipped nearly 4,000 grizzly bear hides from the north Cascades area between 1827 and 1859.

Critics, however, argue there have been significant changes to the landscape and that the much larger human population today needs to be considered.

Formal planning for restoration began in late 2014, when the different groups began meeting to discuss their options. Oelfke said he’s eager to move forward as transparently as possible, and he’ll be attending all eight public meetings to address concerns and provide information.

But Newhouse said the previous public campaign fell short of adequately allowing his constituents to express their opinions. Newhouse said he took the fish and wildlife service “to task” at a natural resources committee hearing for not listening to public concerns. He hopes the February hearings will take a different approach.

Some public comments received make it clear grizzlies would keep some potential visitors away from North Cascades National Park, but for others the bears would have the opposite effect.

“In some places, grizzly bears are a prime attraction and the opportunity or chance to see grizzly bears is pretty exciting for some people,” Oelfke said. “For those people who don’t want to be out where there might be a grizzly bear, perhaps they would not want to go into the backcountry then.”