Washington considers taking over grizzly bear management — But not everyone’s on board
Feb 15, 2025, 5:30 AM
A female Grizzly bear walks in a meadow. (Photo: Jonathan Newton via Getty Images)
(Photo: Jonathan Newton via Getty Images)
A new bill making its way through Washington’s legislature aims to take back control over the state’s most infamous apex predator: the grizzly bear.
House Bill 1825 would repeal a 30-year-old law that bars Washington from actively participating in grizzly bear recovery efforts, which are currently under federal control.
Supporters argue that the state should have a say in managing its own wildlife, while opponents fear the impact on farmers, ranchers and public safety.
A 30-year-old law in the way?
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Larry Springer (D-Kirkland), said the current state law, passed in 1995, ties Washington’s hands when it comes to grizzly conservation.
“The commitment to grizzly bear recovery has been an on-again, off-again commitment by the federal government depending on which party is in charge,” Springer said during a public hearing. “That is not a recipe for a cogent, well-thought-out way to deal with the question of grizzly bear recovery.”
Springer insists the bill wouldn’t automatically bring grizzlies back to the North Cascades, but it would allow Washington’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to engage in discussions and planning.
“I simply do not want to see a 30-year-old law on the books that prevents the state of Washington from even discussing or entering into conversations with our neighbors to the north,” he added.
Dr. Subhadeep Bhattacharjee, the wolf and grizzly bear policy lead for WDFW, also backed the bill, clarifying that the agency has no current plans to reintroduce grizzlies but wants the flexibility to manage the species.
“If any such plans were to be considered, a robust public process and coordination with tribes, federal agencies, and local government entities will be required,” he said.
Related news: Grizzly bears could soon roam Washington forests in controversial plan
Farmers and ranchers say ‘not so fast’
For those in Washington’s agricultural communities, the bill raises red flags. Caleb Gwerder, testifying on behalf of the Washington Farm Bureau, voiced concerns that giving the state a role in grizzly management could pave the way for reintroduction — whether they like it or not.
“Since the ’80s, we’ve heard concerns with predators such as wolves,” Gwerder said. “Introducing another apex predator such as grizzly bears is concerning for livestock production.”
He also pointed out that farmers and orchard workers could face serious safety risks.
“There would be no mechanism at this time to allow employers to prevent possible interactions with grizzlies,” he warned.
Teagan Levine, a resident of Okanogan County, worried that changing the existing law could create unnecessary confusion.
“The current wording of the law has been meticulously crafted to address the complexities of wildlife protection,” Levine testified. “Changing the language may introduce ambiguity, complicate enforcement, and potentially jeopardize the delicate balance between human activities and wildlife conservation.”
Stalled reform: Bill to toughen juvenile gun laws faces uncertain fate
Tribes and biologists see a different future
For conservationists and tribal representatives, the bill represents an opportunity to right a historic wrong. Scott Schuyler, a policy representative for the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, argued that grizzly bears belong in Washington’s wild spaces.
“The Upper Skagit people have coexisted in the rugged North Cascades since time immemorial with grizzly bears,” Schuyler said. “But today, we are collectively responsible for the loss of grizzly bears from the landscape and collectively must all play a role in their return.”
Chris Servheen, a professional bear biologist who led grizzly bear recovery efforts for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 35 years, also pushed back on concerns that grizzlies would naturally return on their own.
“For the North Cascades, there is no occupied habitat within a distance where we can expect bears to move in on their own,” he explained. “The present grizzly numbers on the British Columbia side are likely only a few, if any at all.”
To Servheen, Washington should be proud to play a role in conservation.
“Grizzly bears live in approximately 5% of their former range in the lower 48 states,” he said. “The North Cascades is one of the few areas where grizzly bears could still exist. The state of Washington should be proud to have such a wild area within the state.”
What’s next?
While the bill does not mandate grizzly reintroduction, it does open the door for Washington to take an active role in planning — something that hasn’t been possible for three decades.
A final committee vote on HB 1825 has not yet been scheduled. A do-pass recommendation is needed by the committee by February 21; otherwise, the bill is likely dead for this legislative session.
Matt Markovich often covers the state legislature and public politics for KIRO Newsradio. You can read more of Matt’s stories here. Follow him on X, or email him here.
