Challenging the Biden Administration's ill-conceived grizzly bear relocation proposal

For decades, the debate over grizzly bear introduction into the North Cascades ecosystem has raged on, and I have been fighting tirelessly to ensure that the voices of Central Washingtonians are heard. Regrettably, last week saw the release of the U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with proposed action on the question of introducing grizzly bears to the region. This proves that—once again—the Biden Administration is acting without due consideration for the concerns of Central Washington residents.

Last October, I participated in one of the public comment sessions held in Okanogan, where I witnessed the widespread local opposition to the then-draft EIS. During the session, I heard comments from parents who were scared for their children and family pets, farmers who were worried about their crops and employees, and ranchers who were concerned that their livestock would be attacked. These concerns are not unfounded; in fact, the EIS even states that “livestock depredation by grizzly bears would likely occur” in the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE). The U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also admit that “the restoration of grizzly bears in the NCE has raised concerns about safety risks… because of the potential for human-grizzly bear conflicts.”

Grizzly bears are an apex predator recognized to be over twenty times more dangerous than black bears, and possess a bite force of roughly 1,160 pounds per square inch. Renowned for fatal maulings, home invasions, and posing a tangible threat to outdoorsmen, both experienced and inexperienced, we must question the rationale behind introducing them into an area where they are not frequently found. With a migration range of up to 1,000 square miles, if the North Cascades Ecosystem were their desired habitat, they would have already migrated there on their own. According to the U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one of the primary reasons outlined in the EIS for introducing grizzly bears is to cater to “visitors who seek to experience grizzly bears,” but this should not take priority over the concerns of local residents.

Rather than prioritizing the concerns of residents in the affected areas, the Biden Administration is once again disregarding local public opinion and instead catering to the whims of coastal elites and the out-of-touch environmentalist lobby, which has been pushing for this to move forward since its very inception. When the public comment period of the draft EIS was opened, thousands of comments were received—however, the vast majority of voices came from outside Washington state. If you do not live in the area, it is easy to be excited about the introduction of grizzly bears, but these agencies should be focusing on the opinions of those who would be most impacted by these actions, and I am concerned that this administration had already determined the outcome before initiating the public comment period.

While it seems like the Biden Administration is intent on moving forward with this reckless proposal, I am steadfast in my commitment to opposing the introduction of grizzly bears to our region. Recently, I introduced an amendment in the Interior Appropriations bill aimed at prohibiting federal funding for the implementation or enforcement of the EIS. Additionally, I have been engaging in discussions with the leaders of the U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an effort to dissuade them from moving forward. While this is not the outcome most were hoping for, I will continue to ensure my constituents’ voices and opposition are heard in order to stop this ill-advised proposal in Congress.