Grizzly Bears Back to the North Cascades?

By Sarah Olson

Are humans responsible for repopulating species that have been eradicated by human interaction in the past decades or centuries? Is that a problem that we could solve or is it a mistake of the past that will be left in the past, buried, and never brought up again? Salute to the lost species, it was awesome to have you around, but your time here is over, see you never, I guess? 

Decades ago, grizzly bears were hunted to extinction in the North Cascades region pictured below. The habitat was near perfect for grizzlies to live and thrive, without being preyed on by humans, they would still be ever-present in this area. There have been plans and acts in place to allow grizzlies to rehabilitate the area they used to roam, there are different views and perspectives on the issue, which have made it difficult to reinstate an effective solution and agreement.

North Cascade Area in which the grizzly bear may be reinstated (outlined by orange line)

In 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended starting a multi-year project of transplanting young grizzly bears into the North Cascades, in hopes to rejuvenate the population and restore this piece of the North Cascades that has been missing for so long. The process of reintroducing grizzlies to this region has had many ups and downs. In June of 2020, the Trump Administration’s secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt terminated the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Restoration Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Some were disappointed by this decision, and others were relieved.

Many of those who were relieved by the choice to not restore the grizzly populations were farmers, ranchers, outdoorsmen, and families residing in the area that would become a grizzly bear territory. The individuals who are against bringing back this species have been writing letters to federal and local governments expressing fear and concerns about how bringing back this population could put their herds, hikes and families more likely to encounter that 600-pound hunk of snarls and sinew. It is completely understandable why these demographics of people don’t want an introduction of grizzlies as it poses a threat to typical day-to-day life. The emotion of fear can greatly influence decision-making, and the element of emotion behind these people greatly impacts the decisions that federal agencies make. 

The fear from the ranchers and farmers is that these bears would attack their herds which would dwindle the profit that they can make off the herd. In retrospect to this, unlike wolves, bears do not form packs, making it much more difficult to attack herds. This information could provide ease of thought to the farmers.

To the outdoorsmen and families, the sense of fear comes from themselves, or their loved ones being attacked. This free-floating anxiety may have derived from a place of misunderstanding that grizzly bears are vicious beings that should be avoided at all costs. 

The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) runs right through the North Cascades, which raises a concern for hikers in this area that they must now be more aware and cautious of bears. There is no doubt that individuals involved with these activities are generally more opposed to the restoration project, it is a natural human reaction to push away what makes us feel conquerable by a creature stronger than ourselves.

Grizzly Bear in the wild

Photo by Ian Larson

In contrast to those who are against the restoration project, there are many who back the grizzlies and want the populations to be reintroduced. To back their thoughts, Graham Taylor with the National Parks Conservation Association states numerous reasons in support of grizzlies. The first one is that restoring the species would be a major step for them across their historic range. Grizzlies have been listed as threatened under the endangered species act since 1975, and introducing them to the 2 million-acre area would help restore the population that was once prevalent. 

Returning grizzlies to the North Cascades would be a way of returning the species to their former living range. Currently, they occupy only 2% of the range that they used to. Reintroducing them would return them to about 4% of the range, which would take the bear off of the endangered species list, and would return them to a “recovered” species in the mainland states. It is acknowledged that 96% of the former grizzly range would still remain untouched by the species, however, it is a long-term goal, and reintroducing them on a small scale could eventually lead to a broad-scale recovery. Many studies and evaluations since the 1990s show that the wilderness remains supple habitat for the grizzly bear. It is one of six designated areas that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated as a Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones, which has “wild areas where there is abundant quality habitat to support viable grizzly populations”.

So, there are pros and cons to restoring the grizzly population, depending on who you ask. There is a rightful fear in bringing back the species, for individual or public safety, maybe even the stability of the prey that roams the woods. Others feel the moral responsibility to restore the species, along with many other species that humans have been involved with diminishing or extirpated to help the ecosystem and to fix our previous irresponsible harvesting habits. The coming months will determine what the future looks like for the grizzly bear in the North Cascade mountain range, and maybe on your next visit to Washington, you will run into one of these great big fuzzy bears.