Regarding the recent editorial (“Plan for grizzly bears’ return reemerges from den,” The Herald, Aug. 25), the article talks about the “benefits” of reintroduction and uses the examples of “distribution of fertilizer and plant seeds” to support the argument. However, the article fails to present the current and future impacts of such a reintroduction.
For example, it states the proposed ecosystem is about 9,800 square miles but fails to show its location and proximity to well-established towns and people. An analogy: It is compared to recommending protections of areas once home to bison, without considering the current uses of those roaming grounds. Current protections are extensive and already prohibit the human use of those areas.
Why plan for so many bear. If the entire Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem in Montana, over three decades, supports 55 to 60 bears, why is the North Cascades area set for 200 grizzlies?
The article also fails to question what will occur if reintroduced bears starve in the “chosen” wilderness area. Will the government violate wilderness regulations and feed and monitor these previously wild animals.
Could it be that the area designated by government as habitat is, in fact, not their preferred habitat? Perhaps the grizzly food supply is not abundantly found in the North Cascades. Perhaps were the food supply there, the bear would be there.
Consider me against “forced” reintroduction into “wilderness designated” ecosystems. It just isn’t natural.
Before Oct. 20, write the the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agencies stating your rejections of government interference in the species management of wilderness areas.