Editor's note: Should grizzly bears be allowed to recover their presence in the North Cascades? While it's possible that some grizzlies have made it down to the North Cascades, if they have it's a very solitary and remote presence. This month the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service are holding a series of meetings on a Grizzly Bear Restoration Environmental Impact Statement that examines whether the agencies should actively work toward grizzly bear recovery in the region. In the following opinion piece, Rob Smith, senior director of the National Parks Conservation Association's Northwest Region, speaks out in favor of the bears' recovery.
North Cascades National Park is at the heart of a disappearing opportunity to “save all the pieces” in what the Park Service calls the most rugged mountain range in the Lower 48. One of those pieces is the grizzly. Restoring these rare bears to the North Cascades would be a gift of the natural world to future generations, but time is running out.
Even in some of our most rugged and wild national parks, incredible opportunities for “rewilding” exist, allowing plant and animal species to return, strengthening the health of ecosystems and, in turn, the vitality of our National Park System. In the Northwest, we celebrated last year when the final pieces of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams were removed, and salmon populations instantly rebounded in areas where they were denied access for decades.
Now, in the North Cascades ecosystem, discussions that have been years in the making have begun to transform into reality, as the National Park Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Forest Service have begun a public process to plan for the restoration of a grizzly bear population to the region, including North Cascades National Park.
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) strongly supports this first formal step toward recovering an important Pacific Northwest native species that is at risk of disappearing forever. The North Cascades Ecosystem, anchored by North Cascades National Park, contains one of the largest areas of wild and protected land in the lower 48 states and abundant habitat for the animal to thrive. Recovering the population of this native, top predator will have far-reaching benefits across the ecosystem; wherever grizzlies thrive, so does wildness, clean water, and abundant native fish and wildlife.
While a few grizzly bears have been sighted in the Canadian part of the North Cascades Ecosystem, no grizzly bears have been sighted in the United States portion for several years. There are as many as 50 grizzlies in the Selkirk Mountain Ecosystem northeast of Spokane, Washington, and confirmed sightings have occurred in northcentral Washington in recent years.
The current scoping period, open through March 26, marks progress in a three-year, public engagement process. Within this time, it is important that supporters of our national parks, wildlife, and wild places get involved. Scoping will help develop a roadmap for the agencies to follow in developing their environmental impact report; a draft of which we would hope to see next year. NPCA calls for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to include at least one alternative that focuses on augmenting the grizzly bear population with bears that currently reside outside of the North Cascades Recovery Zone, if the science shows that this is needed to create a healthy self-sustaining population in the North Cascades. We will be looking for information within the draft EIS that is backed by science and includes the number of bears needed for a self-sustaining population.
Like many efforts that require careful planning, the road to grizzly bear recovery within North Cascades National Park and the greater ecosystem is a long process that will continue for years to come. NPCA is encouraged by these positive next steps and forward-thinking vision shown by the agencies in embarking on this effort. As we look towards the 2016 centennial of our National Park Service and the next 100 years to come, restoring wildlife populations that support the vitality of our most treasured places through efforts like grizzly bear restoration in the North Cascades Ecosystem is an appropriate and needed role for our National Park Service to lead. Grizzly bears have historically helped make North Cascades National Park a spectacular, diverse piece of wild America -- and that’s worth protecting.
Rob Smith is Senior Director of the Northwest Region for the National Parks Conservation Association.
Comments
A county adjacent to North Cascades NP is exploring a lawsuit in response to this plan:
http://www.capitalpress.com/Washington/20150306/county-may-sue-to-stop-g...
While I would support grizzly restoration, I have seen these same public meeting tactics used to defuse potential opposition on other issues at other parks and gotten the strong impression the gatherings were more about negotiating hoops than honestly seeking public input.
Bingo, Tahoma.
In fairness to those involved in this planning process, the recent sessions were advertised as "open houses," not public a "public hearing" where "open mic" comments would be made in front of an audience. The "open house" is an early step in the planning, where anyone interested is invited to come to an informal session and talk one on one with agency reps, ask questions, and gather information. I would think the public would welcome that opportunity. At a more formal "public meeting" there's rarely the chance for those extended one on one conversations.
Sounds like those involved might have done a better job explaining the expectations for the recent event - but after reading some of the rhetoric in the article in the above link, I don't think that was the problem. Those opposed to this idea are going to be opposed, and will complain about any process that is used.
If this plan follows the usual pattern, there will be additional meetings in the future, and more chances to comment. This plan is in the very first stages called "scoping," and a draft plan hasn't even been written yet. Personally, I think the process has gotten too complicated and drawn out, but that's due to efforts to allow public input at more stages in the plan.
The above comment says attendees were invited to leave written comments after talking to the agency reps. I have to wonder why written comments are deemed less acceptable than those made orally? My limited experience with public meetings with an "open mic" for comments is they offer a chance to vent a lot of emotion, but I have to wonder if that really leads to the better decisions - or just good soundbites for the media?
It's got similar veins to the wolf reintroduction in central Idaho. You have a few vocal screamers, and then you have many that just go about their daily lives and aren't affected by wolves in their back yards. I personally, am all for grizzlies being back in the North Cascades, and in other areas too. They should also be back in Central Idaho from the Frank to the Bitteroots down into the Sawtooths, and also back in the Wind Rivers, where they can beging to get a foothold back into the plains and grasslands regions of Wyoming. There is definitely habitat and food to sustain a moderately healthy population of around a thousand or so in the Cascades, and Central Idaho. Once these areas get re-established, then of course places like the Unitas in Utah/Wyoming could be next, which would then guide them back into Colorado... but maybe that's being too optimistic.
A population in the Cascades is another area that needs to happen. Once they start to prosper again, they can be guided back into Oregon, and northern California.
Thanks for elaborating on the public meeting process, Jim. I agree it's gotten too complicated and think that itself is a source of some of the public frustration. I remember plenty of the old-style meetings with "vent[ing] of emotions", so it's understandable why officials would prefer a more controlled environment.
On the other hand, I think the current style of subtopic "stations" concentrating on details discourages general opinion comments. Many rural people may be uncomfortable expressing their opinions in a written format. I have also seen "open houses'' scheduled during weekday work hours and at inconvenient locations. Also, those larger later stage meetings rarely have enough time for everyone to express oral comments.
I helped prepare for public meetings during my NPS career and saw how they were viewed by mangement as a necessary evil, to be gotten through as painlessly as possible. It seemed pretty rare for anything but their preferred alternate to be adopted. A few years ago at a Mount Rainier meeting on raising climbing fees, one of the staff inadvertently let the cat out of the bag by revealing that they wanted to tie the fee to inflation, "...so we don't have to go through this again."
I don't know what the answer is but the whole EIS process sucks. It is tedious, time consuming, expensive, repetitious, and frustrating to all involved including the public. I no longer attend scoping meetings where the government says we don't have a clue on what we want to do, but we want you to tell us what all we should consider. I do get involved when a draft EIS or EA has been published and at the same time recognize no manager in their right mind would go thrugh the process unless they had already decided what they wanted to do.
Who wants to hear passionate illiterates discuss things they don't know much about?
I personally like the controlled environment, and by law they include all the comments. Otherwise you have showboaters taking too much time and saying things others might not want to hear.
I think I understand what argalite is trying to say, but let me add a thought.
Who is to decide who at a public meeting is a "passionate illiterate?" Is the determination of whether they know what they are talking about dependent upon whether one agrees with them or not?
In my experience there are "showboaters" on all sides of almost any issue. Just because I may disagree with them -- and really might not want to hear what they have to say -- don't I also have an obligation as an American who believes in upholding our Constitution and its First Amendment to at least allow them to say what they feel they need to say?
After all, to some others in the audience, my opinions on almost any given subject might be things they don't want to hear. In that case, do I become one of those passionate illiterates?
The basis of all this is an old fashioned and too often ignored concept. Something called respect for others who may disagree. Who knows -- perhaps if we would listen to them with respect and open minds, we might discover that they have something of value to consider.