On many levels, the argument can be made that grizzly bears are the true owners of the Washington North Cascades as these apex predators have roamed those lands for thousands of years before settlers came along. Today, there are barely any bears left, which is why some people have been calling for the reintroduction of these majestic creatures back into the state’s ecosystem.

Now, there is no doubt that there will likely be some practical benefits to trying to revive grizzly bears in the North Cascades. However, what is also certain is that none of these perceived benefits even come anywhere close to matching up against the disadvantages of performing such an exercise. But in situations like this, it’s important that we give ourselves one thing – context.

The idea of bringing back the grizzly bears to the Washington North Cascades is a noble one, to be sure. However, it fails to account for one small and simple, yet crucial fact; the North Cascades of today are far from the North Cascades that existed at the height of the reign of these apex predators. Things have changed drastically and significantly.

Let’s take the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, for example. This group of people can be found in the foothills of the North Cascade not far from the town of Darrington. Why are these people and their location important? Because they are precariously close to one of the habitats that the bears will be reintroduced to. The implication of this is that should this initiative be allowed to go through, it is almost certain that this Indian Tribe will come in contact (to great danger) with these creatures.

As Chair Nino Maltos II, the leader of the tribe, says, “They (grizzly bears) love feasting on the spawning ground. The spawning grounds happen to be right behind where a lot of us live.” A small detail worth noting about the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe is that pre-contact, this group numbered more than 8,000. Today, they are barely above 300. And frankly, it’s hard to see the grizzly bears doing anything other than decimating their numbers even more.

Interestingly, while the bear-human contact problem might be more imminent for the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, it’s actually a challenge that everyone who stays in and around (or visits) the North Cascades region will inevitably experience. Grizzly bears are not known for being stationary creatures. More specifically, many studies have tracked the movements of these animals and found that they can travel as far as 100 miles or even more in search of food and depending on the weather.

By translation, this means that you could be taking a hike a considerable distance from the designated space for these creatures and still run into one anyway. This fact hasn’t eluded residents of the region, which is why Janelle Schuyler, an environmental activist and a member of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, could say, “I’ve had conversations with friends who are avid hikers up and down the North Cascades, and they have their strong opinions — they don’t want bears encroaching on their recreational time.”

However, the very idea of reintroducing this species back into the ecosystem is made more ludicrous by the manner in which the government plans to do it. The most viable method of approach being considered for this task is to designate the grizzly bears as a nonessential experimental population. For the uninitiated, this means that it would give residents of Washington North Cascades the right to kill the grizzly bears under certain circumstances. It’s important to stress that the vast majority of such circumstances are inevitable under the conditions soon to be created.

All of which begs the question; why in the world would anyone want to attempt this reintroduction exercise, knowing fully well that these animals will most likely end up getting killed?

And, then, there is the financial implication of making such a move. Keep in mind that, for this reintroduction project, the government would like to bring 7 to 10 bears in for the period of a decade. This is a feat that’s certain to cost millions in taxpayers dollars. Can we categorically say this would be money well spent? What exactly would have been accomplished by investing resources that would clearly be better used in a thousand and one other places?

Beyond the amount of money that would be invested, let’s also consider the grazing rights that would have to be rescinded just so the bears can stay, as well as the cost implications of this to the farmers. There’s also the fact that the reintroduction of the grizzly bears will almost certainly destroy the already delicate salmon production balance in the region. This is another project that a significant amount of time and resources have been invested in.

We could go on and on, but by this time, it should be clear to see that this plan is a pipe dream that’s not worth pursuing for any reason.

Grizzly bears are an important aspect of the Washington North Cascades, that is true. But they are also in the past. It’s time to fully focus on the future and unlock all it holds in store for us.