The National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have re-started their plan to translocate grizzly bears into the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) in Washington. While a new population of grizzlies in the North Cascades would restore this magnificent species to that ecosystem, the agencies’ initial plan is misguided many ways. The initial plan would most likely degrade Wilderness in the North Cascades, weaken the grizzly population in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) around Glacier National Park, and strip the individual grizzlies of their current protections under the Endangered Species Act. During this initial “scoping” period, the public has the opportunity to tell the agencies how to improve their tentative plan. The proposed 6.1 million-acre recovery area includes North Cascades National Park and 2.6 million acres of Wilderness in the Pasayten, Mt. Baker, and Stephen Mather Wildernesses. Under the proposed action, the NPS and the FWS would capture bears from source populations in either interior British Columbia or the NCDE. Approximately 3 to 7 captured grizzly bears would be released into the NCE each year over roughly 5 to 10 years, with a goal of establishing an initial population of 25 grizzly bears. The proposed action includes a problematic proposal to designate the reintroduced grizzly bears in the NCE as an “experimental population” under section 10(j) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under this designation, the bears (at least any captured in the U.S.) would lose their current protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and could be shot, re-captured, or killed in the North Cascades. Wilderness Watch supports the recovery of grizzly bears and other native species where suitable habitat exists. The rugged North Cascades are historic grizzly bear habitat, and there may still be a few currently living on the U.S. side of the border, with a grizzly bear photographed there in 2010. But recovery efforts must meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act. This means restoring the area’s grizzly population without the use of motor vehicles, helicopters, and motorized equipment in Wilderness, without trammeling or manipulating Wilderness or its wildlife. However suitable the habitat in the North Cascades is, we take issue with the methods likely to be used—the reintroduction plan could be extremely intrusive in designated Wilderness, could rely on activities prohibited by the Wilderness Act, and could come at a significant cost to Wilderness. The plan’s proposed helicopter landings would most likely occur either in Wilderness in North Cascades National Park or in Wilderness within the surrounding National Forests, despite most of the project area being outside of Wilderness. The extensive use of helicopters in Wilderness would continue indefinitely for monitoring bear movement and numbers, and would degrade the Wildernesses involved. Heavy-handed management would not only be detrimental to Wilderness, but to bears as well, as they would be subjected to initial capture, handling, and helicopter flight, and attendant stress from such activities. Some may be injured or even die as a result. They would likely be collared, drugged, subject to samples taken, and handled for many years. And if that weren’t enough, the proposed plan ignores the literature describing the effects of helicopters on wildlife, including grizzlies. It’s also questionable whether a translocation plan will be successful without Canadian support. Information is lacking on the status of grizzlies on the Canadian side of the border though this area is crucial in any success, as bears wander between the U.S. and British Columbia in the North Cascades ecosystem. The essential irony is that agencies recognize the best place to release bears is in the exceedingly rare wildness of the North Cascades. The best grizzly habitat is synonymous with Wilderness: space to roam, isolation, denning sites, safety from human-caused mortality, and distance from human conflicts and garbage. But the agency’s proposed methods of re-establishing grizzlies diminish all these advantages. If the Park Service adopts a translocation plan, it must be in line with the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act. Monitoring should take place in a way that’s respectful to Wilderness and bears, including using hair snags, camera traps, scat collection, and on-the-ground sightings to know whether the bears are thriving. It’s wrong to rely on intrusive radio-collaring, helicopter landings, and ongoing sedating, capturing, and handling of the bears. The proposed action lacks a natural recovery option. The best way to meet the goal of a viable grizzly population in the North Cascades would be to allow for and boldly promote the natural recovery of grizzlies. This is a very different approach than the “no action” option, which is to “do nothing.” A natural recovery alternative would require working with British Columbia to protect grizzlies over a larger land base and would provide for connectivity between populations in the U.S. and Canada using protected habitat corridors. It would also include other measures to ensure that grizzlies are not killed by humans, regardless of what side of the border they are on and whether they are in National Parks, Wilderness, or other public or private lands. It might take longer and require more patience than the instant gratification of capturing and releasing dozens of bears, but it would ultimately create a more durable population sharing the landscape with a human population that is more likely to respect the bears that make it back to the North Cascades on their own. | 
