Frequently Asked Questions regarding grizzly bears in the North Cascades:

Most of this information was sourced from North Cascades National Park and Glacier National Park documents.

Q1. When was there a permanent grizzly population in the Washington North Cascades?
A1. According to NCNP, most of the population was removed 170 years ago, by the 1860's, due to hunting and reduced habitat.

Q2. Are grizzlies endangered or threatened in British Columbia?
A2. No, the grizzly population in BC is thriving. There are over 60,000 grizzlies north of the US/Canada border, and 14,000 in BC alone.

Q3. Is there anything preventing or discouraging grizzlies from migrating back into Washington from BC?
A3. No. In fact, two grizzlies are known to go back and forth between WA and BC .

Q4. Is the North Cascades ecosystem failing because of the absence of grizzly bears?
A4. No. By all measures other apex predators have completely filled the ecological gap left by grizzlies.

Q5. Are any prey species becoming overpopulated in the North Cascades as a result of the absence of grizzlies?
A5. No. Deer and elk populations are stable. Hunting in the park has never been allowed, either by the public or by contracted private hunters.

Q6. Are other predator species in the North Cascades endangered, threatened, or otherwise not thriving?
A6. Yes. Many predator species other than grizzlies are struggling in NCNP. Endangered species include the gray wolf, Canada lynx, and fisher. Threatened species include wolverines.

Q7. How would importing grizzlies to the North Cascades impact species already there?
A7. Importing grizzlies to the North Cascades would effectively guarantee the extinction of gray wolf, Canada lynx, and fisher in the park. It would directly impact the black bear population (grizzlies often dig black bear cubs out of their den and eat them at the end of hibernation. They will kill black bears and drive them out of the area. It would also significantly reduce the marmot population as well as ermine.

Q8. Would importing grizzlies to the North Cascades divert money and resources away from efforts to help other North Cascades species?
A8. Yes. Budgets and staffs are finite and already stretched thin. Time and money spent importing grizzlies would cut into the overall budget.

Q9. Are grizzly bears more dangerous to humans than black bears, wolves, or cougars?
A9. Yes. Using data from Glacier National Park (the nearest national park also bordering Canada) and the surrounding area, per capita grizzlies are far more likely to attack a human causing injury or death than a black bear. Per capita they are more likely to attack a human than a cougar/mountain lion. They are far far more likely to attack a human than a wolf. By my own calculations of GNP grizzly attacks resulting in injury or death to GNP grizzly population compared to those of black bears, I calculate a six times higher likelihood. Other sources calculate that grizzlies are up to 20 times more likely to attack a human than a black bear. (Note, there is abundant disinformation online posted by people and organizations that refuse an evidence-based approach and instead put belief ahead of all else - the belief that things should be the way they were 200 years ago no matter what has changed since then, and no matter the risks or real benefits.)

Q10. If grizzlies are imported to the North Cascades, will backpackers be required to use heavy hard-shell bear cans for food storage?
A10. No such policy has been announced, but it's assumed that the NPS and FS will need to adopt the same rules they adopted where there are grizzlies such as Yosemite, Sequoia & Kings Canyon, and Desolation Wilderness.

Q11. Are hikers more likely to carry guns when hiking where grizzlies are known to be present?
A11. Yes, more hikers carry guns when a grizzly encounter is possible. When the rate of gun carry goes up so does the rate of gun accidents.

Q12. What is the risk/benefit analysis of the proposal to import grizzlies to the North Cascades?
A12. The proposal does not include any risk/benefit analysis. The benefit to the ecosystem is not stated in the proposal. The risks to the ecosystem, the budget, and to hikers are not stated.

Q13. What is the benefit to the bears themselves?
A13. The benefit to the bears that would be drugged and transported is unclear and unstated in the proposal. A similar program to transport 300 mountain goats from Olympic National Park to the North Cascades resulted in a 99% death rate. That project had a budget of $300K over three years. They spent $480K in the first year.