Few grizzlies have been seen in Washington in recent decades, but federal officials want to restore the bear population.
Grizzly bears once roamed the rugged landscape of the North Cascades in Washington but few have been sighted in recent decades.
Federal officials want to restore the population, and on Thursday released a draft plan with four options, ranging from taking no action to varying efforts to capture bears from other sites and transplant them to 9,800 square miles of mostly public land surrounding North Cascades National Park.
Two of the alternatives envision a goal of about 200 bears within 60 to 100 years, while a third expedited option expects to restore 200 animals in 25 years.
The National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not pick a preferred alternative. Instead they’re seeking input over the next several weeks on what steps they should take to restore grizzly bears to their natural range.
Most Read Local Stories
- The Northern Lights could be visible from across Washington state; here’s how and when to see them
- 'Why are we exporting billions of dollars around the state?' The coming showdown over Seattle's money | Danny Westneat
- Viaduct demolition is about done. Here's how to get a free piece of the old highway
- WSU student died 4 hours before police were called, coroner says
- Traffic nightmare: Bizarre fire, crash close I-5 lanes near Lakewood for nearly 13 hours VIEW
The draft plan comes as the federal government is deciding whether to lift protections for more than 700 grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park. Officials had planned to finalize by the end of 2016 a proposal to turn management of grizzlies over to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming officials and allow limited hunting, but a deluge of opposition is tying up a decision.
In Washington, the grizzly plan has stoked intense debate as federal officials sought input in 2015 as it developed its draft environmental-impact statement.
Supporters said the shy, massive creatures — a symbol of true wilderness — should be brought back, that the population won’t recover without help and their return would increase the biodiversity of the ecosystem.
Others said the animals should recovery naturally, while others worried about potential increased dangers to people and livestock and opposed the move over potential impacts to communities, ranchers, farmers and others.
Federal officials note that grizzly bears tend to avoid areas of human activity, and the animals would be relocated in remote areas, away from grazing allotments. They’ll be radio-collared and monitored. Grizzly bears would likely come from areas in northwestern Montana or south-central British Columbia.
The bears are at risk of local extinction, and recovering them would enhance the population’s survival, restore the animal as part of the area’s cultural heritage and provide people the chance to experience the animals in their native habitat, federal officials say.
Without intervention, the animals could disappear. Individual bears are increasingly isolated and have limited opportunity to breed, the agencies said.
An estimated 50,000 grizzlies once roamed much of North America. Most were killed off by hunters in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and they now occupy about 2 percent of their original range across the Lower 48 states.
They were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975. And in the North Cascades, the population is estimated to be fewer than 20 animals, according to Fish and Wildlife Service.
The most recent confirmed sighting of a bear was in 1996 in the U.S. portion of the North Cascades ecosystem. A bear, however, was confirmed in British Columbia within 20 miles of the U.S.
The North Cascades ecosystem offers some of the best habitat to recover the animals, and a federal 1997 plan designated the area as one of five grizzly-bear recovery zones. The others are in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.
The 1997 plan called for an environmental review to evaluate a range of alternatives for recovering the North Cascades grizzly population, but no funds were allocated until 2014. The environmental impact statement is expected to be finalized this fall.
Eight public meetings are scheduled next month (here’s where and when). The public can weigh in on the draft environmental-impact statement through March 14.