Proponents have argued that the plan would restore biodiversity to the region, build ecological resilience and contribute to the overall recovery of endangered grizzly bear populations. But residents of nearby communities disagree.
“Hell no to grizzlies,” read a sign carried by one attendee at the meeting in Darrington.
While rangers and scientists listened, the assembled public voiced near-unanimous opposition to the proposal. For two hours, they expressed concerns about everything from public safety to the health of the ecosystem.
Despite this pushback, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced last April their joint decision to reintroduce the bears, aiming to establish a population of about 200 by the end of the century. The decision to forge ahead left some residents wondering if their concerns had been considered at all.
Darrington Mayor Dan Rankin, who opposes the plan, said many of his constituents’ perspectives had not been well-represented in the decision-making process.
“It’s a very passionate idea,” he said. “When we’re passionate about things, we don’t always see the impacts that could be adverse – not only to the ecosystem, but to the folks that have to live with these decisions.”
Darrington resident Kevin Ashe agreed, citing several grizzly attacks in Montana.
An August 2004 photo of the Cascade Range inside North Cascades National Park near Marblemount, Wash. North Cascades residents disagree on whether grizzly bears should be reintroduced to the area. (AP Photo/Chris Rodkey, File)
“They have no concern for us and our safety,” Ashe said. “It’s not going to be too long before something bad happens.”
Not all North Cascades residents agree. Scott Schuyler, a tribal elder and policy representative for the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, said he was looking forward to the bears’ return.
“The grizzly bear is a significant animal in our history and our culture, as all animals are of the landscape,” Schuyler said. “They’re in our stories. They’re in our place names. They’re a spirit animal to the tribe.”
As large carnivores, the bears are necessary for seed and nutrient dispersal, said Kristin Botzet, a representative of the Northwest Division of Defenders of Wildlife, an organization devoted to protecting and restoring imperiled species in North America.
“The North Cascades is a predominantly wilderness area, and it’s one of the largest tracts of wilderness that we have left in the lower 48 states,” Botzet said. “The cool thing about bringing them back is that it restores it to what it should have been for this very wild place.”
Andrew Lavalle, spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said organizers received roughly 30,000 public comments both for and against reintroducing grizzlies.
“We heard a variety of perspectives from across the spectrum,” he said. “Agencies reviewed those, broke them down by concern statement, and then did include responses to those in the documents.” The full list of responses is publicly accessible online.
Disappearing bears
Prior to 1800, an estimated 50,000 grizzly bears roamed 18 states. By 1975, there were fewer than 800. Grizzly populations have risen since the bear received protections under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, and about 2,000 remain in the contiguous United States.
Supporters of reintroducing the bears to the North Cascades say it would be a vital next step in restoring the species and their ecosystems. Before approving the plan, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held four in-person comment sessions in the towns of Darrington, Okanogan, Newhalem and Winthrop. At these meetings, many North Cascades locals raised concerns about public safety and the survival of fish populations.
While officials have approved the plan, Rankin said public opinion in Darrington hasn’t budged.
“There’s a divide that is fairly unreasonable and unwavering and causes trouble,” he said. “That atmosphere is not healthy for our environment or communities.”
In 2023, Darrington resident Ashe and former forester Walt Dortch of nonprofit Darrington Area Resource Advocates submitted a letter to the National Park Service outlining their objections.
Darrington Mayor Dan Rankin in his office in a March 17, 2015 file photo. “I have long felt the reintroduction of the grizzly bear is too early for the habitat that we have in the North Cascades,” Rankin said. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
While the plan states that restoring grizzlies to the North Cascades ecosystem will benefit its biodiversity, Ashe and Dortch argued that the agencies hadn’t provided adequate proof that the ecosystem is impaired without the bears.
“We, the rural people that live in the areas close to where these bears will be introduced, will be affected most, including financial and loss of livelihood,” Dortch said. “There’s an obligation to define the purpose of a project and the need for it.”
Ashe was concerned about potential impacts for residents who would be living and recreating in close proximity with wild grizzlies.
“This is not 1800 anymore,” he said. “It’s a fool’s game to think that these bears have a right to live when there’s so many people that live in these areas.”
While bear attacks are uncommon, they can be deadly. The agencies involved have said they plan to increase outreach to residents and visitors on how to respond in the unlikely event of a grizzly encounter.
“We will have to relearn how to live with these animals on the landscape,” LaValle said. “That will take time.”
He also said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is open to flexibility in its bear protection procedures under the Endangered Species Act to allow landowners more autonomy. Depending on the landowner’s location, this could include nonlethal deterrence of a bear, authorized relocation of a bear, or even limited permission to kill a bear should one encroach on the safety of human beings or livestock.
“These are additional management flexibilities that don’t exist in other ecosystems,” LaValle said. “It allows us to address conflicts and prevent conflicts sooner with more tools than exist in other areas.”
Some residents have raised concerns about the presence of the bears harming the state’s already-declining salmon population. However, the bears are unlikely to affect salmon counts, according to National Marine Fisheries Service research.
While that’s good news for salmon, Rankin still doesn’t think the ecosystem is ready.
“I have long felt the reintroduction of the grizzly bear is too early for the habitat that we have in the North Cascades,” Rankin said.
LaValle of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said preparing for the bears’ return has been a lengthy process, and that all potential impacts would be carefully considered prior to their reintroduction.
“They’re not just going to go to the bear store and pull one off the shelf,” he said. “They would be looking for a specific subset of bears.”
The bears that will be introduced will come from inland ecosystems, such as the Rocky Mountains and interior British Columbia. These bears have omnivorous but largely plant-based diets.
While bear populations in the region historically did hunt salmon, experts said the bears set to be imported to the North Cascades wouldn’t know how to hunt salmon and don’t rely on the fish for a significant portion of their diet.
Rankin argued by introducing this subspecies, the plan is pursuing a human-centered ecosystem.
“It’s not to enhance the environment, it’s just to have grizzly bears in the region,” he said.
Schuyler disagreed. He said the bears have a right to inhabit the North Cascades.
“The Upper Skagit people lived in the North Cascades mountain range for literally 10,000 years, and it was only in the last 50 years that the bears were removed from the landscape,” he said.
Schuyler said that in Upper Skagit culture, animals are of paramount importance. These ties are why he continues to advocate for restoring the landscape’s wildlife to what he called an “Indigenous state.”
“We’re responsible. We, mankind, people, for driving out the bear,” he said. “Until the day comes when we return the bear, it’s going to be a social-justice issue for our people.”
Botzet said she empathizes with residents, and they are not alone in feeling concerned about the transition to living near grizzly bears.
“We want to ensure that these communities are ready for when they come,” she said. “We have the opportunity now to work together and try to be as proactive as possible, to minimize any potential conflicts that would occur.”
No set timeline
The decision to reintroduce grizzlies to the North Cascades has been years in the making. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first explored the idea as part of the National Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service planned to release three to seven bears each year for five to 10 years, establishing an initial population of 25. According to the record of the decision, the agencies expect the population to reach 200 within 60 to 100 years.
Chosen bears would be captured in culvert traps, driven to a designated staging area and prepared for release at other sites in remote areas with few roads.
Each bear would wear a GPS collar showing its coordinates with a two-day delay.
Additional bears could be released to help cultivate population growth.
An initial attempt to draft an Environmental Impact Statement for the project was halted by the Trump administration in 2020. Officials began again in 2022, and a draft recommending the bears’ reintroduction was completed in September 2023. The plan’s approval was announced in April.
But since President Trump’s return to the White House, his administration has issued sweeping cuts to environmental programs nationwide. Opponents of the grizzly reintroductions hope it will be next.
“In his first term, this project went off the table. It would not surprise me if it does go off the table again,” Rankin said. “The delay of that reintroduction would be somewhat welcome.”
Botzet said she has concerns for the plan’s future, but there are still many moving parts.
“We’ve already seen impacts at the federal level, with pretty much all environmental agencies,” she said. “We’re going to have to wait and see and just hope that it’s not going to be too severe of an impact.”
She said much of what happens in the plan will depend on Trump’s pick for the Fish and Wildlife Service director, Brian Nesvik. Nesvik is awaiting confirmation from the Senate.
Lavalle declined to comment on the plan’s continuity under Trump.
Officials said there is no set timeline yet for releasing the bears.
Last confirmed sighting
In 1996, while he was hiking in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Canadian researcher Paul Paquet saw a female grizzly bear eating huckleberries.
That was the last confirmed sighting of a grizzly in the North Cascades.
The bears have been absent ever since from the U.S. side of the Cascades, a region encompassing about 6.1 million acres, or 9,800 square miles.
In the 1800s, federal estimates placed the Western American grizzly population at 50,000. By 1930, there were fewer than 500.The Fish and Wildlife Service identified direct killing and habitat destruction and modification as primary causes.
Today, models estimate that the North Cascade ecosystem has the capacity to support approximately 280 bears.
Until they return to the Cascades, Rankin urged officials to prioritize restoration at all levels of the ecosystem.
“I think that the North Cascades is a wonderful ecosystem, and it’s full of so many amazing things,” he said. “Doing the hard work could have a much more meaningful and much more holistic recovery than an experiment.”
Correction May 25, 2025: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of the agency David LaValle represents. It is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
