Interior secretary shows support for grizzly bear restoration in Cascades

Grizzly bears once roamed the rugged landscape of the North Cascades in Washington state, but few have been sighted in recent decades.

How to survive a coyote encounter in Seattle

Federal officials looking to restore the grizzly bear population released a draft plan last year with four options, ranging from taking no action to varying efforts to capture grizzly bears from other locations and transplant them to 9,800 square miles of mostly public land in and around North Cascades National Park.

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service worked on drafting the environmental impact statement (EIS) for several years. After being published for public opinion, it was met with mixed reaction.

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke spoke on Friday in Sedro-Woolley, declaring his support for the restoration.

“I’ve dealt with the grizzly bear all my life,” he said. “I’m in support of the great bear … I’m also in support of doing it right.”

Recently his department halted the EIS. It’s unclear why. Zinke did tell reporters that he expects a decision on the EIS by the end of the year.

How the EIS would restore grizzlies in the cascades

Three of the proposed alternatives seek to restore a population of about 200 grizzly bears by relocating animals and letting them breed. The options differ in the number of bruins initially released and the time expected to get to that goal, ranging from 25 years for the expedited option to 60 to 100 years for the other two alternatives.

Seattle is the zoo architecture capital of the world

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 also be radio-collared and monitored.

Supporters say the shy, massive creatures – a symbol of true wilderness – should be brought back. They say the population won’t recover without help, and their return would increase the biodiversity of the ecosystem.

Others say the animals should recover naturally, while some worry about potential increased dangers to recreationists and livestock and opposed the move over potential impacts to communities, ranchers, farmers and others.